Talk:Expulsion of the Acadians

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
I have removed the following from the infobox: Forcible transfer, deportations, persecutions, unlawful confinement, plunder of public and private property 


 * The Rome Statute of 17 July 1998, was not binding for the UK in August 10, 1755 – July 11, 1764 since the country had not yet signed the convention (rather obvious!).
 * The Acadian refusal to swear the oath of allegiance was, I believe, rightful justification, under existing Law of Nations, to expel them. As far as I know, this is how it was supposed to work: 1) Country lost war. 2) Country ceded territory to winner. 3) Loser released ceded territory from allegience. 4) Winner promised to respect the privileges of the people of the ceded territory. 5) People of ceded territory swore allegiance  to new Sovereign. That's what happened after the Silesian Wars when Prussia won Silesia.
 * Retrospective use of modern standards is ahistorical and has no place in encyclopedic articles.
 * In any case, there need to be a source from some relevant authority that claims that expulsion of the Acadians was a breach of the Rome Statue. Otherwise it is original research. Creuzbourg (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Historical comparisons
The section is titled 'Historical comparisons' and it spends six of its seven paragraphs describing different authors' opposition to characterizing the described events as being ethnic cleansing or genocide. It should either be renamed "A historical comparison, and the extensive opinions of those who disagree with it" or it should be removed. One of the explanations of how it isn't genocide or ethnic cleansing includes a comparison to Indian Removal, whose article describes the policy as both genocide and ethnic cleansing. Another cites the historical fear that the Acadian populace might pose a military threat, making the actions carried out against said populace not able to be classified as genocide or ethnic cleansing, a fact that the ICC should probably be made aware of as soon as possible. Wouldn't want them convicting anyone who had "military reasons" for forcibly relocating civilian populations, would we?

On an unrelated note, there is a striking preponderance of Canadian authors cited in the section. This likely has nothing to do with the lengths it goes to in order to say that the acts were indeed not genocide or ethnic cleansing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.189.202.82 (talk) 07:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)