Trump to send 30,000 migrants to Guantanamo Bay, infamous constitutional blacksite, in opening of new concentration camp ^ original title of the post, which is what it should be. Editorialized the...
Trump to send 30,000 migrants to Guantanamo Bay, infamous constitutional blacksite, in opening of new concentration camp
^ original title of the post, which is what it should be.
At the signing of the Laken Riley Act, President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he is directing the opening of a detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to hold up to 30,000 migrants who are living illegally in the United States and cannot be deported to their home countries.
Editorialized the title, because this fucker just announced a concentration camp and the media is just going along with it.
Changed the title to the AP one because this isn't reddit, facebook, tiktok, or anywhere else that allows/encourages such. The individuals here are smart enough to understand what it means without...
Changed the title to the AP one because this isn't reddit, facebook, tiktok, or anywhere else that allows/encourages such.
The individuals here are smart enough to understand what it means without being told what to think.
I just looked up how many people were previously at Guantanamo. It was under 100 and it was at no point before above 1000. If they really do end up with 30,000 people there it sounds like a...
I just looked up how many people were previously at Guantanamo. It was under 100 and it was at no point before above 1000. If they really do end up with 30,000 people there it sounds like a concentration camp to me.
Disagree with what? That the people here are smart enough to read past a headline? That you think this should be a place full of editorialized and sensationalized titles? The AP doesn't "want" to...
Disagree with what?
That the people here are smart enough to read past a headline?
That you think this should be a place full of editorialized and sensationalized titles?
The AP doesn't "want" to bury anything. El Cheeto is a fascist piece of shit, but your sensationalized (very different than "editorialized") title is simply untrue. The AP title is not.
I think there's enough ambiguity in the term to make it "arguably a concentration camp." I don't think you'd be wrong to say it's a concentration camp, and I also don't think you'd be wrong to say...
I think there's enough ambiguity in the term to make it "arguably a concentration camp." I don't think you'd be wrong to say it's a concentration camp, and I also don't think you'd be wrong to say it's something like a "detention camp."
We all agree that words mean things. Sometimes that means pointing out when something is xyz; sometimes it means pointing out when something isn't xyz. I wouldn't blame either position in this instance—as much as we want to call a spade a spade and call things out, we need to also acknowledge that it can backfire in a boy who cried wolf situation—and I really think that's part of how Trump got elected in 2016.
Anyway, I'm on an airplane so I'll take any responses off the air.
For what it’s worth I agree with your decision in this. People can come to their own conclusions. If OP thinks that AP news is trying to hide this then they can talk about that in a comment (as...
For what it’s worth I agree with your decision in this.
People can come to their own conclusions. If OP thinks that AP news is trying to hide this then they can talk about that in a comment (as they have, although needlessly confrontational in tone about it).
Edit-
I think what bothers me a lot in this specific case of headline editorializing is the poster is making an argument not directly stated in their link, by their own admission? I’m sure theres plenty of articles out there that have similar conclusions, so why not just link to one of them?
Out of curiosity I've tried to see how much this actually adheres to a concentration camp, and what I've concluded is that no one actually has a consistent definition of "concentration camp". I do...
Out of curiosity I've tried to see how much this actually adheres to a concentration camp, and what I've concluded is that no one actually has a consistent definition of "concentration camp". I do think it's probably best to avoid the term as a result, since it's just going to cause confusion and pedantry.
The risk of what exactly? Confusing a known off-shore black site infamous for it's human right violations repurposed for holding "the worst criminal migrants" (notice they aren't even illegal...
The risk of what exactly? Confusing a known off-shore black site infamous for it's human right violations repurposed for holding "the worst criminal migrants" (notice they aren't even illegal anymore, it's been a week) for a concentration camp? I guess we're good measured leftists and we just call it an internment camp because that worked well for the US-Japanese in WWII?
The Merriam-Webster definition is as vague as which would literally include every single prison or jail in the United States. You could probably argue parts of airports are. If it is heinous, the...
The Merriam-Webster definition is as vague as
a place where large numbers of people are detained or confined under armed guard
which would literally include every single prison or jail in the United States. You could probably argue parts of airports are.
If it is heinous, the description will speak for itself. You already gave the general sentiment around "Guantanamo" - is that not sufficient?
You edited that The types of people who are being confined in large numbers is very relevant. Also Britannica It's not confusing. And fear of hypothetical pedants is insufficient to avoid speaking...
a place where large numbers of people (such as prisoners of war, political prisoners, refugees, or the members of an ethnic or religious minority) are detained or confined under armed guard —used especially in reference to camps created by the Nazis in World War II for the internment and persecution of Jews and other prisoners
The types of people who are being confined in large numbers is very relevant.
concentration camp, internment centre for political prisoners and members of national or minority groups who are confined for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment, usually by executive decree or military order. Persons are placed in such camps often on the basis of identification with a particular ethnic or political group rather than as individuals and without benefit either of indictment or fair trial. Concentration camps are to be distinguished from prisons interning persons lawfully convicted of civil crimes and from prisoner-of-war camps in which captured military personnel are held under the laws of war. They are also to be distinguished from refugee camps or detention and relocation centres for the temporary accommodation of large numbers of displaced persons
It's not confusing. And fear of hypothetical pedants is insufficient to avoid speaking uncomfortable truths.
FWIW I agree with the stylistic decision to reference the AP headline verbatim. I don’t think Tilde’s needs editorializing in linked articles titles. What I contest is that calling this a...
FWIW I agree with the stylistic decision to reference the AP headline verbatim. I don’t think Tilde’s needs editorializing in linked articles titles.
What I contest is that calling this a concentration camp is an abuse of language or otherwise exaggerating the circumstance.
My issue isn't that it's "exaggerating the circumstance", it's that it's not clear at all. I mean, this thread already proves it. DefinitelyNotAFae very strongly believes a concentration camp does...
My issue isn't that it's "exaggerating the circumstance", it's that it's not clear at all. I mean, this thread already proves it.
DefinitelyNotAFae very strongly believes a concentration camp does NOT imply a death camp, where the prisoners are due for execution.
Eliji1700 very strongly believes that a concentration camp IS a death camp, and that saying otherwise is "foolish".
I disagree. I don't think it brings anything to the table. Words are useful because they bring meaning; if someone is using the Merriam-Webster definition, which is a well known English...
I disagree. I don't think it brings anything to the table. Words are useful because they bring meaning; if someone is using the Merriam-Webster definition, which is a well known English dictionary, then the only meaning "concentration camp" implies is that there are people detained there, and armed guards.
Trump says he’ll send ‘worst’ criminal migrants to Guantanamo
Sounds pretty bad. If you want to imply that he's, say, going to mass-execute them, why not call it a "death camp" or "Trump intends to execute illegal immigrants"?
I would like you to acknowledge you're not using the full M-W definition. I think editing it and claiming it's the full definition is not the best way to engage in this discussion. I'd feel the...
I would like you to acknowledge you're not using the full M-W definition. I think editing it and claiming it's the full definition is not the best way to engage in this discussion.
Wikipedia This is sufficiently clear. People imprecisely use it for extermination camps, and labor camps can be blurred because often the government involved blurs them. If there's a comparable,...
A concentration camp is a prison or other facility used for the internment of political prisoners or politically targeted demographics, such as members of national or minority ethnic groups, on the grounds of state security, or for exploitation or punishment
The term "concentration camp" and "internment camp" are used to refer to a variety of systems that greatly differ in their severity, mortality rate, and architecture; their defining characteristic is that inmates are held outside the rule of law.[
This is sufficiently clear. People imprecisely use it for extermination camps, and labor camps can be blurred because often the government involved blurs them.
If there's a comparable, correct, term, I'd be interested to hear it.
We wouldn't say the Japanese Americans were on an unexpected and indefinite vacation in mandatory quarters, so what's the correct phrasing you'd recommend instead?
Exactly. It's a term with a lot of baggage, a lot of different definition, and elicits very different meaning for different people, which makes it not useful as language. As to what term you want...
People imprecisely use it for extermination camps, and labor camps can be blurred because often the government involved blurs them.
Exactly. It's a term with a lot of baggage, a lot of different definition, and elicits very different meaning for different people, which makes it not useful as language.
As to what term you want to use instead, that depends on OP's intentions - which I genuinely can't exactly tell.
If you want imply that Trump is going to have them all killed, then call it a death camp. If you just want to say that the people there are imprisoned because of political beliefs, call it a political prison. I would even say "gulag" gets the point across better for that purpose.
People are being detained and concentrated in large numbers for their identity based on a political agenda indefinitely without due process. Concentration camp is the term for this. I'm not...
People are being detained and concentrated in large numbers for their identity based on a political agenda indefinitely without due process.
Concentration camp is the term for this. I'm not implying murder, despite fearing it. "Political prisoners" means something different, their politics don't matter. Gulag isn't even English.
People misuse words all the time, we shouldn't stop using them.
In that case, gulag, or internment camp, or political prison gets that across without implying anything else to a large many people. Personally, when I read "concentration camp", the connection...
In that case, gulag, or internment camp, or political prison gets that across without implying anything else to a large many people.
Personally, when I read "concentration camp", the connection with mass executions is ever-present, which is why it's not useful if OP is not trying to imply that said illegal immigrants are going to be summarily executed.
I'm hearing that you get confused. Gulag is certainly not more commonly understood. Internment camps aren't any clearer of a term than concentration camp.. Especially when avoiding terminology...
I'm hearing that you get confused. Gulag is certainly not more commonly understood.
Internment camps aren't any clearer of a term than concentration camp.. Especially when avoiding terminology risks whitewashing a situation, it's a bad idea to continue avoiding it. Add a definition to clarify if necessary, operationalizing is always good, but avoiding it is giving permission for it to happen IMO.
Also I wouldn't force you to say anything but editing it out as if it's false is wrong
I mean, there's someone else that already called you "foolish" by proxy It's not just me, a lot of people are confused, because a lot people take very different meanings of the word. Internment...
I mean, there's someone else that already called you "foolish" by proxy
The immediate association is death camp. To pretend otherwise is to be foolish and to make it seem like crying wolf.
It's not just me, a lot of people are confused, because a lot people take very different meanings of the word.
Internment camp is more clear because of historical connotations. We did unfairly, and with due process, imprison Japanese-Americans for their racial background. But they were not executed. Hence the connotation is not there.
Yeah and I also disagree with them and so does a survivor of a concentration camp. You know what, if OP's original headline had said "internment camp" and wasn't edited, I'd be cool with that. It...
I mean, there's someone else that already called you "foolish" by proxy
Yeah and I also disagree with them and so does a survivor of a concentration camp.
It's not just me, a lot of people are confused, because a lot people take very different meanings of the word.
Internment camp is more clear because of historical connotations. We did unfairly, and with due process, imprison Japanese-Americans for their racial background. But they were not executed. Hence the connotation is not there.
You know what, if OP's original headline had said "internment camp" and wasn't edited, I'd be cool with that. It is also a correct term.
But there is nothing wrong with using another correct term here. And it's very easy to provide a definition, without editing out the parts you did in the MW one, that alleviates the confusion
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. There's a lot of people who are take the definition more like Elij1700 did, and that causes confusion. The point of language is to communicate, in the...
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. There's a lot of people who are take the definition more like Elij1700 did, and that causes confusion. The point of language is to communicate, in the end. The only right definition of a word is the one that most people understand.
The general confusion in these threads between different people with different definitions is self evidence of the lack of clarity. If OP had meant to imply a death camp, then using death camp in the title would at least only lead to people asking if Trump really is going to execute them; if they used internment camp, it would only lead to people asking if it is politically motivated.
As I said elsewhere. We can disagree, but I don't feel you're being genuine if you're editing the definitions you're using. This argument, when both concentration and internment camps are...
As I said elsewhere.
I would like you to acknowledge you're not using the full M-W definition. I think editing it and claiming it's the full definition is not the best way to engage in this discussion.
We can disagree, but I don't feel you're being genuine if you're editing the definitions you're using.
This argument, when both concentration and internment camps are reasonable terms to use, contributes to legitimizing anything less than extermination camps.
Instead of avoiding pedantry, you're advocating using gulag - which is a foreign language term for a forced labor camp, and thus not the same thing at all. Demonstrating that no term is perfect and we should absolutely operationalize them, or provide explanatory commas.
But we should not back away from the correct terms.
They were called Japanese internment camps, not concentration camps. While you could argue they should've been called that, they've never been popularly called concentration camps because the...
They were called Japanese internment camps, not concentration camps. While you could argue they should've been called that, they've never been popularly called concentration camps because the general understanding of concentration camp is "designed to eventually kill residents" as the Nazis used.
While many leftists call migrant internment camps concentration camps, they're generally not designed for ethnic cleansing. It feels like sensationalism here to say that's what Trump is doing. Trump says a lot of nonsense which will never happen, and we play into the fascists' hands by freaking out over every stupid thing they say.
Source for the sub sources FDR disagrees with you. On August 10, 1936 From a Neil Conan the interviewer who used the term along with his guest. The Holocaust Museum's definition Roger Daniels, a...
One obvious thought occurs to me—that every Japanese citizen or non-citizen on the Island of Oahu who meets these Japanese ships or has any connection with their officers or men should be secretly but definitely identified and his or her name placed on a special list of those who would be the first to be placed in a concentration camp in the event of trouble.
From a Neil Conan the interviewer who used the term along with his guest.
"Concentration camp" is a term that predates both Hitler and Communism. The Nazi concentration camps are more usually, and more accurately described as Death Camps. Stalin's Gulags are slightly different, as they were prison camps, though the "crimes" and "trials" were often specious. But a concentration camp, such as those operated by the British during the Boer War, does not in and of itself suggest atrocity.
The Holocaust Museum's definition
The term concentration camp refers to a camp in which people are detained or confined, usually under harsh conditions and without regard to legal norms of arrest and imprisonment that are acceptable in a constitutional democracy.
Roger Daniels, a historian and author
[He] wrote an analysis for the University of Washington Press called "Words Do Matter: A Note on Inappropriate Terminology and the Incarceration of the Japanese Americans." He concludes that, although it's unlikely society will completely cease to use the phrase "Japanese internment," scholars should abandon the term and use "concentration camp." He considers internment a euphemism that minimizes a tragic time in American history.
The Secretary of the Interior for FDR, 1946
"As a member of President Roosevelt's administration, I saw the United States Army give way to mass hysteria over the Japanese...Crowded into cars like cattle, these hapless people were hurried away to hastily constructed and thoroughly inadequate concentration camps, with soldiers with nervous muskets on guard, in the great American desert. We gave the fancy name of 'relocation centers' to these dust bowls, but they were concentration camps nonetheless.
A counter point from another historian
The term "concentration camp" may once have been a euphemism for a Nazi "extermination camp," but I think that over time the two kinds of camps have become inextricably linked in the popular imagination. In other words, I believe the meaning of the term "concentration camp" has changed over time. During World War II, officials and commentators could say Japanese Americans were confined in concentration camps without evoking images of Nazi atrocities. I don't think that this is true today.
If you have counter evidence that it was never used, I'm open to it.
Edit: At a minimum he is planning to use the Alien Enemies Act and to put people in a concentration camp. Whether he does it is certainly a question for the future. I don't feel like calling it something else would make it less likely that it happens. Call it out before it goes further than a wishlist.
Thanks for bringing historical receipts. I'd tend to agree with the historian that "concentration camps" now refers to internment camps with genocidal intent. It's interesting to learn that's a...
Thanks for bringing historical receipts. I'd tend to agree with the historian that "concentration camps" now refers to internment camps with genocidal intent. It's interesting to learn that's a more modern distinction.
Perhaps it's due to how history education about genocides generally includes discussions about the progression from ghettos to concentration camps, both of which probably qualify as types of internment camps?
Yes how dare those who have survived or have had family members sent to death camps use the wrong terminology and muddy the waters…. The immediate association is death camp. To pretend otherwise...
Yes how dare those who have survived or have had family members sent to death camps use the wrong terminology and muddy the waters….
The immediate association is death camp. To pretend otherwise is to be foolish and to make it seem like crying wolf.
This is already a fucking horrible thing. It’s a fucking torture site at minimum. Why die on this hill
George Takei: "I know what concentration camps are. I was inside two of them, in America." I'm not being sensational. I'm being serious. And I do not think that people who have experienced this...
I'm not being sensational. I'm being serious. And I do not think that people who have experienced this are mistaken. George Takei was referencing the detention of immigrants in 2019 and now things are worse and he is still right.
I'm not crying wolf. I'm saying there's a rabid dog in the yard and he's right there telling us what he's going to do to people.
I guess it's only a concentration camp if it comes from the Małopolska region, otherwise it's simply sparkling internment camps. I don't know what the hell we're all doing, there's 29 comments in...
I guess it's only a concentration camp if it comes from the Małopolska region, otherwise it's simply sparkling internment camps.
I don't know what the hell we're all doing, there's 29 comments in this thread and most of them are arguing about terminology, as if that really matters. We know what the purpose of the installation is (and no I'm not saying it's for mass executions), we know what the result will be, we know the reasoning behind it is, and we know what's going to happen: dehumanization, death (whether intended or accidental or a simple side effect of), misery, all for ignoble goals.
It's going to be yet another of the many dark parts of American history and I don't really give a shit what it's called (it's a concentration camp), a mass amount of people will be crammed in to a facility not meant to house them, for spurious reasons, and only misery will come of it.
Anyway it's not like the Nazi concentration camps were all intended to be mass execution sites, or that they all had gas chambers. It all had the same starting point as a way of taking Jewish people, getting them out of their homes, funnelling them in to camps, causing misery and death, and only later did it turn in to a plan for mass execution, genocide.
I want to also point out, past all the discussion about what we need to call the Camp of Needless Harmful Maluses to Peoples, that Guantanomo Bay itself is a really shitty thing the American government has forced upon Cuba. President McKinley (oddly who Trump seems to model himself after now) entered the Spanish-American war, Cuba (Spanish territory at this point) was occupied by the US military, in 1901 Cuba gets their constitution and is reborn as a republic, in 1903 the US enters in to a permanent lease on the land to use as a Navy Base, in 1953 the Cuban revolution happens, Batista is ousted, and a whole new era of hostilities between the US and Cuba starts. During this, America retains control of the Navy Base, Cuba objects, and hasn't deposited any of the payments of the lease that America (roughly $4000 a year) out of objecting to the occupation of the land. If Cuba tries to reclaim it, America will respond with severe military force. Ever since 1903, a big chunk of Cuba is occupied by the US Navy for whatever they want to use it for, most recently for holding Cuban and Haitian refugees intercepted on the high seas (until it was deemed unconstitutional in 1995), and for holding and torturing suspected terrorists after 9/11 without being given the right to a fair trial. Only fitting that the American government now finds another awful use for the stolen land.
Yeah there were a variety of sparkling camps, labor, concentration, death/extermination. I fear we end at the genocide point - and if we do it won't only be immigrants facing it. "First we came...
Anyway it's not like the Nazi concentration camps were all intended to be mass execution sites, or that they all had gas chambers. It all had the same starting point as a way of taking Jewish people, getting them out of their homes, funnelling them in to camps, causing misery and death, and only later did it turn in to a plan for mass execution, genocide.
Yeah there were a variety of sparkling camps, labor, concentration, death/extermination. I fear we end at the genocide point - and if we do it won't only be immigrants facing it. "First we came for", and all.
It's bad and I refuse to whitewash it behind senses of propriety. I hate this whole fucking thing so much.
You're absolutely right about Cuba, I doubt most folks are even aware of the migrant detention center there. Our claim to land there is the same attitude that makes Trump think we can take Panama or Denmark. He's not exactly the first to think this way, he's just the worst of this current moment.
I don't have an exemplary to give, so I hope I remember to come back and tag you.
Anthony Scaramucci didn't have a problem calling it one. Here Scientific American back in June discussed how this is the same rhetoric that led to concentration camps. Trump is using the same act...
When the law was last invoked in World War II, the Alien Enemies Act provided the legal authority for incarcerating noncitizens of Japanese, German, and Italian descent. It allows presidents to target people because of their identity, not their conduct or the threat they pose to national security.
I don't know what else to call intentionally detaining people with no due process, not even deportation, indefinitely.
Motherfucker Genuine question, with all that is happening and all that is getting passed, what methods of response do the average citizen have? I know we can demonstrate, call our reps, and...
Motherfucker
Genuine question, with all that is happening and all that is getting passed, what methods of response do the average citizen have? I know we can demonstrate, call our reps, and then... what? Check one and check two, and now I have no idea what to do.
It is increasingly likely, if not already certain, that there is nothing we can legally do, especially if the Trump regime continues to crack down on free speech, which it certainly will.
It is increasingly likely, if not already certain, that there is nothing we can legally do, especially if the Trump regime continues to crack down on free speech, which it certainly will.
Support local organisations that create alternative social support structures outside of the government. I'm not religious, but many churches shelter migrants and offer social services to...
Support local organisations that create alternative social support structures outside of the government. I'm not religious, but many churches shelter migrants and offer social services to attendees. Plenty of non-religious legal aid and social organizations can always use more volunteers to do good in the world.
If you don't have time, money can also support organisations. Try finding local organizations you can support to do more things you want to see in your community. I personally donate to local urbanist organizations.
Fuck. I am getting more terrified for my fianceé and her family by the hour (and everyone who is not white, frankly). This country is absolutely heading down the path of concentration camps and...
Fuck. I am getting more terrified for my fianceé and her family by the hour (and everyone who is not white, frankly). This country is absolutely heading down the path of concentration camps and death camps. It's only a matter of time before they start sending citizens there, and start trying to retroactively remove birthright citizenship like they've said they intend to. "Deport" has become a barely-veiled cover for extermination - see Republican politicians threatening to "deport" the bishop that reminded Trump of Jesus's teachings.
Yet one of the most prominent white nationalists has the last name Fuentes and is a proud Mexican American. The social backlash to illegal immigration is messy. I only hope that Americans again...
Yet one of the most prominent white nationalists has the last name Fuentes and is a proud Mexican American. The social backlash to illegal immigration is messy. I only hope that Americans again start rejecting Trump as the ugliness of locking children in cages gets publicised again.
Yeah, the self hating ones are always strange. They're unfortunately nothing new - there were Jewish Nazis, and they were some of the first to go. I hope so too, but I fear it will go far beyond...
Yeah, the self hating ones are always strange. They're unfortunately nothing new - there were Jewish Nazis, and they were some of the first to go.
I only hope that Americans again start rejecting Trump as the ugliness of locking children in cages gets publicised again.
I hope so too, but I fear it will go far beyond before we get to the point where his supporters turn on him. I also fear that the ones left are not only ok with this, but want it to go even further.
It's more complicated than self-hating. Many legal and second or third generation immigrants view the latest waves of asylum seekers (especially from other countries) as rule breakers that...
It's more complicated than self-hating. Many legal and second or third generation immigrants view the latest waves of asylum seekers (especially from other countries) as rule breakers that shouldn't be allowed in America. Most Americans support legal immigration.
Hispanic voters are absolutely not a monolith, and it's a mistake to view them as a unified group. For example, Mexicans and Venezuelans both speak Spanish, but they're very different socially and politically. As another example, Trump's secretary of state, Marco Rubio, is the bilingual son of Cuban immigrants. My mom loved him because he's fluent in Spanish.
Everyone is freaking out over this, and not wrongly. However, all I can think of is: invoking Guantanamo Bay is deliberate, right? The Trump admin knows what Guantanamo Bay represents in the...
Everyone is freaking out over this, and not wrongly.
However, all I can think of is: invoking Guantanamo Bay is deliberate, right?
The Trump admin knows what Guantanamo Bay represents in the American consciousness. They didn't choose it by accident. And they didn't openly announce it by accident, either.
This was calculated. Either to cause a media frenzy and provoke a backlash, or to strike fear in the hearts of undocumented immigrants. Or perhaps both.
This thread is being treated as some kind of weird battleground where almost all of the comments are more concerned about pedantry instead of the actual news, and people are misusing many...
This thread is being treated as some kind of weird battleground where almost all of the comments are more concerned about pedantry instead of the actual news, and people are misusing many different site mechanics in order to support their side of that argument. So now it's going to be locked and removed until I have time to review what's been going on, and decide if anyone needs to lose access to some of these tools.
Trump to send 30,000 migrants to Guantanamo Bay, infamous constitutional blacksite, in opening of new concentration camp
^ original title of the post, which is what it should be.
Editorialized the title, because this fucker just announced a concentration camp and the media is just going along with it.
Changed the title to the AP one because this isn't reddit, facebook, tiktok, or anywhere else that allows/encourages such.
The individuals here are smart enough to understand what it means without being told what to think.
Yeah, I'm going to disagree with you here. That is purposely burying the lede which is what they want. Fucker is opening a concentration camp.
I just looked up how many people were previously at Guantanamo. It was under 100 and it was at no point before above 1000. If they really do end up with 30,000 people there it sounds like a concentration camp to me.
Disagree with what?
That the people here are smart enough to read past a headline?
That you think this should be a place full of editorialized and sensationalized titles?
The AP doesn't "want" to bury anything. El Cheeto is a fascist piece of shit, but your sensationalized (very different than "editorialized") title is simply untrue. The AP title is not.
The Alien Enemies Act is being invoked. What exactly is this if not a concentration camp? Using correct terminology is not sensationalism.
I think there's enough ambiguity in the term to make it "arguably a concentration camp." I don't think you'd be wrong to say it's a concentration camp, and I also don't think you'd be wrong to say it's something like a "detention camp."
We all agree that words mean things. Sometimes that means pointing out when something is xyz; sometimes it means pointing out when something isn't xyz. I wouldn't blame either position in this instance—as much as we want to call a spade a spade and call things out, we need to also acknowledge that it can backfire in a boy who cried wolf situation—and I really think that's part of how Trump got elected in 2016.
Anyway, I'm on an airplane so I'll take any responses off the air.
For what it’s worth I agree with your decision in this.
People can come to their own conclusions. If OP thinks that AP news is trying to hide this then they can talk about that in a comment (as they have, although needlessly confrontational in tone about it).
Edit-
I think what bothers me a lot in this specific case of headline editorializing is the poster is making an argument not directly stated in their link, by their own admission? I’m sure theres plenty of articles out there that have similar conclusions, so why not just link to one of them?
Out of curiosity I've tried to see how much this actually adheres to a concentration camp, and what I've concluded is that no one actually has a consistent definition of "concentration camp". I do think it's probably best to avoid the term as a result, since it's just going to cause confusion and pedantry.
The risk of what exactly? Confusing a known off-shore black site infamous for it's human right violations repurposed for holding "the worst criminal migrants" (notice they aren't even illegal anymore, it's been a week) for a concentration camp? I guess we're good measured leftists and we just call it an internment camp because that worked well for the US-Japanese in WWII?
The Merriam-Webster definition is as vague as
which would literally include every single prison or jail in the United States. You could probably argue parts of airports are.
If it is heinous, the description will speak for itself. You already gave the general sentiment around "Guantanamo" - is that not sufficient?
You edited that
The types of people who are being confined in large numbers is very relevant.
Also Britannica
It's not confusing. And fear of hypothetical pedants is insufficient to avoid speaking uncomfortable truths.
FWIW I agree with the stylistic decision to reference the AP headline verbatim. I don’t think Tilde’s needs editorializing in linked articles titles.
What I contest is that calling this a concentration camp is an abuse of language or otherwise exaggerating the circumstance.
My issue isn't that it's "exaggerating the circumstance", it's that it's not clear at all. I mean, this thread already proves it.
DefinitelyNotAFae very strongly believes a concentration camp does NOT imply a death camp, where the prisoners are due for execution.
Eliji1700 very strongly believes that a concentration camp IS a death camp, and that saying otherwise is "foolish".
It's just going soften and normalize this, and make it easier for them to get away with it. We cannot downplay things.
I disagree. I don't think it brings anything to the table. Words are useful because they bring meaning; if someone is using the Merriam-Webster definition, which is a well known English dictionary, then the only meaning "concentration camp" implies is that there are people detained there, and armed guards.
Sounds pretty bad. If you want to imply that he's, say, going to mass-execute them, why not call it a "death camp" or "Trump intends to execute illegal immigrants"?
I would like you to acknowledge you're not using the full M-W definition. I think editing it and claiming it's the full definition is not the best way to engage in this discussion.
I'd feel the same way if we agreed about this.
Wikipedia
This is sufficiently clear. People imprecisely use it for extermination camps, and labor camps can be blurred because often the government involved blurs them.
If there's a comparable, correct, term, I'd be interested to hear it.
We wouldn't say the Japanese Americans were on an unexpected and indefinite vacation in mandatory quarters, so what's the correct phrasing you'd recommend instead?
Exactly. It's a term with a lot of baggage, a lot of different definition, and elicits very different meaning for different people, which makes it not useful as language.
As to what term you want to use instead, that depends on OP's intentions - which I genuinely can't exactly tell.
If you want imply that Trump is going to have them all killed, then call it a death camp. If you just want to say that the people there are imprisoned because of political beliefs, call it a political prison. I would even say "gulag" gets the point across better for that purpose.
People are being detained and concentrated in large numbers for their identity based on a political agenda indefinitely without due process.
Concentration camp is the term for this. I'm not implying murder, despite fearing it. "Political prisoners" means something different, their politics don't matter. Gulag isn't even English.
People misuse words all the time, we shouldn't stop using them.
In that case, gulag, or internment camp, or political prison gets that across without implying anything else to a large many people.
Personally, when I read "concentration camp", the connection with mass executions is ever-present, which is why it's not useful if OP is not trying to imply that said illegal immigrants are going to be summarily executed.
I'm hearing that you get confused. Gulag is certainly not more commonly understood.
Internment camps aren't any clearer of a term than concentration camp.. Especially when avoiding terminology risks whitewashing a situation, it's a bad idea to continue avoiding it. Add a definition to clarify if necessary, operationalizing is always good, but avoiding it is giving permission for it to happen IMO.
Also I wouldn't force you to say anything but editing it out as if it's false is wrong
I mean, there's someone else that already called you "foolish" by proxy
It's not just me, a lot of people are confused, because a lot people take very different meanings of the word.
Internment camp is more clear because of historical connotations. We did unfairly, and with due process, imprison Japanese-Americans for their racial background. But they were not executed. Hence the connotation is not there.
Yeah and I also disagree with them and so does a survivor of a concentration camp.
You know what, if OP's original headline had said "internment camp" and wasn't edited, I'd be cool with that. It is also a correct term.
But there is nothing wrong with using another correct term here. And it's very easy to provide a definition, without editing out the parts you did in the MW one, that alleviates the confusion
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. There's a lot of people who are take the definition more like Elij1700 did, and that causes confusion. The point of language is to communicate, in the end. The only right definition of a word is the one that most people understand.
The general confusion in these threads between different people with different definitions is self evidence of the lack of clarity. If OP had meant to imply a death camp, then using death camp in the title would at least only lead to people asking if Trump really is going to execute them; if they used internment camp, it would only lead to people asking if it is politically motivated.
As I said elsewhere.
We can disagree, but I don't feel you're being genuine if you're editing the definitions you're using.
This argument, when both concentration and internment camps are reasonable terms to use, contributes to legitimizing anything less than extermination camps.
Instead of avoiding pedantry, you're advocating using gulag - which is a foreign language term for a forced labor camp, and thus not the same thing at all. Demonstrating that no term is perfect and we should absolutely operationalize them, or provide explanatory commas.
But we should not back away from the correct terms.
They were called Japanese internment camps, not concentration camps. While you could argue they should've been called that, they've never been popularly called concentration camps because the general understanding of concentration camp is "designed to eventually kill residents" as the Nazis used.
While many leftists call migrant internment camps concentration camps, they're generally not designed for ethnic cleansing. It feels like sensationalism here to say that's what Trump is doing. Trump says a lot of nonsense which will never happen, and we play into the fascists' hands by freaking out over every stupid thing they say.
Source for the sub sources
FDR disagrees with you.
On August 10, 1936
From a Neil Conan the interviewer who used the term along with his guest.
The Holocaust Museum's definition
Roger Daniels, a historian and author
The Secretary of the Interior for FDR, 1946
A counter point from another historian
If you have counter evidence that it was never used, I'm open to it.
Edit: At a minimum he is planning to use the Alien Enemies Act and to put people in a concentration camp. Whether he does it is certainly a question for the future. I don't feel like calling it something else would make it less likely that it happens. Call it out before it goes further than a wishlist.
Thanks for bringing historical receipts. I'd tend to agree with the historian that "concentration camps" now refers to internment camps with genocidal intent. It's interesting to learn that's a more modern distinction.
Perhaps it's due to how history education about genocides generally includes discussions about the progression from ghettos to concentration camps, both of which probably qualify as types of internment camps?
Yes how dare those who have survived or have had family members sent to death camps use the wrong terminology and muddy the waters….
The immediate association is death camp. To pretend otherwise is to be foolish and to make it seem like crying wolf.
This is already a fucking horrible thing. It’s a fucking torture site at minimum. Why die on this hill
George Takei: "I know what concentration camps are. I was inside two of them, in America."
I'm not being sensational. I'm being serious. And I do not think that people who have experienced this are mistaken. George Takei was referencing the detention of immigrants in 2019 and now things are worse and he is still right.
I'm not crying wolf. I'm saying there's a rabid dog in the yard and he's right there telling us what he's going to do to people.
I guess it's only a concentration camp if it comes from the Małopolska region, otherwise it's simply sparkling internment camps.
I don't know what the hell we're all doing, there's 29 comments in this thread and most of them are arguing about terminology, as if that really matters. We know what the purpose of the installation is (and no I'm not saying it's for mass executions), we know what the result will be, we know the reasoning behind it is, and we know what's going to happen: dehumanization, death (whether intended or accidental or a simple side effect of), misery, all for ignoble goals.
It's going to be yet another of the many dark parts of American history and I don't really give a shit what it's called (it's a concentration camp), a mass amount of people will be crammed in to a facility not meant to house them, for spurious reasons, and only misery will come of it.
Anyway it's not like the Nazi concentration camps were all intended to be mass execution sites, or that they all had gas chambers. It all had the same starting point as a way of taking Jewish people, getting them out of their homes, funnelling them in to camps, causing misery and death, and only later did it turn in to a plan for mass execution, genocide.
I want to also point out, past all the discussion about what we need to call the Camp of Needless Harmful Maluses to Peoples, that Guantanomo Bay itself is a really shitty thing the American government has forced upon Cuba. President McKinley (oddly who Trump seems to model himself after now) entered the Spanish-American war, Cuba (Spanish territory at this point) was occupied by the US military, in 1901 Cuba gets their constitution and is reborn as a republic, in 1903 the US enters in to a permanent lease on the land to use as a Navy Base, in 1953 the Cuban revolution happens, Batista is ousted, and a whole new era of hostilities between the US and Cuba starts. During this, America retains control of the Navy Base, Cuba objects, and hasn't deposited any of the payments of the lease that America (roughly $4000 a year) out of objecting to the occupation of the land. If Cuba tries to reclaim it, America will respond with severe military force. Ever since 1903, a big chunk of Cuba is occupied by the US Navy for whatever they want to use it for, most recently for holding Cuban and Haitian refugees intercepted on the high seas (until it was deemed unconstitutional in 1995), and for holding and torturing suspected terrorists after 9/11 without being given the right to a fair trial. Only fitting that the American government now finds another awful use for the stolen land.
Yeah there were a variety of sparkling camps, labor, concentration, death/extermination. I fear we end at the genocide point - and if we do it won't only be immigrants facing it. "First we came for", and all.
It's bad and I refuse to whitewash it behind senses of propriety. I hate this whole fucking thing so much.
You're absolutely right about Cuba, I doubt most folks are even aware of the migrant detention center there. Our claim to land there is the same attitude that makes Trump think we can take Panama or Denmark. He's not exactly the first to think this way, he's just the worst of this current moment.
I don't have an exemplary to give, so I hope I remember to come back and tag you.
There's literally a sibling comment which offers a definition that is NOT death camp
Clearly it's not universal.
Anthony Scaramucci didn't have a problem calling it one.
Here Scientific American back in June discussed how this is the same rhetoric that led to concentration camps.
Trump is using the same act as was used on Japanese Americans
I don't know what else to call intentionally detaining people with no due process, not even deportation, indefinitely.
Motherfucker
Genuine question, with all that is happening and all that is getting passed, what methods of response do the average citizen have? I know we can demonstrate, call our reps, and then... what? Check one and check two, and now I have no idea what to do.
It is increasingly likely, if not already certain, that there is nothing we can legally do, especially if the Trump regime continues to crack down on free speech, which it certainly will.
Check out the thread about Robert Reich's post on this topic! I'm trying to highlight some stuff but his original is very thorough
Support local organisations that create alternative social support structures outside of the government. I'm not religious, but many churches shelter migrants and offer social services to attendees. Plenty of non-religious legal aid and social organizations can always use more volunteers to do good in the world.
If you don't have time, money can also support organisations. Try finding local organizations you can support to do more things you want to see in your community. I personally donate to local urbanist organizations.
Fuck. I am getting more terrified for my fianceé and her family by the hour (and everyone who is not white, frankly). This country is absolutely heading down the path of concentration camps and death camps. It's only a matter of time before they start sending citizens there, and start trying to retroactively remove birthright citizenship like they've said they intend to. "Deport" has become a barely-veiled cover for extermination - see Republican politicians threatening to "deport" the bishop that reminded Trump of Jesus's teachings.
Yet one of the most prominent white nationalists has the last name Fuentes and is a proud Mexican American. The social backlash to illegal immigration is messy. I only hope that Americans again start rejecting Trump as the ugliness of locking children in cages gets publicised again.
Yeah, the self hating ones are always strange. They're unfortunately nothing new - there were Jewish Nazis, and they were some of the first to go.
I hope so too, but I fear it will go far beyond before we get to the point where his supporters turn on him. I also fear that the ones left are not only ok with this, but want it to go even further.
It's more complicated than self-hating. Many legal and second or third generation immigrants view the latest waves of asylum seekers (especially from other countries) as rule breakers that shouldn't be allowed in America. Most Americans support legal immigration.
Hispanic voters are absolutely not a monolith, and it's a mistake to view them as a unified group. For example, Mexicans and Venezuelans both speak Spanish, but they're very different socially and politically. As another example, Trump's secretary of state, Marco Rubio, is the bilingual son of Cuban immigrants. My mom loved him because he's fluent in Spanish.
Everyone is freaking out over this, and not wrongly.
However, all I can think of is: invoking Guantanamo Bay is deliberate, right?
The Trump admin knows what Guantanamo Bay represents in the American consciousness. They didn't choose it by accident. And they didn't openly announce it by accident, either.
This was calculated. Either to cause a media frenzy and provoke a backlash, or to strike fear in the hearts of undocumented immigrants. Or perhaps both.
This thread is being treated as some kind of weird battleground where almost all of the comments are more concerned about pedantry instead of the actual news, and people are misusing many different site mechanics in order to support their side of that argument. So now it's going to be locked and removed until I have time to review what's been going on, and decide if anyone needs to lose access to some of these tools.