Thank you everyone for the lively discussion! We discussed different ideas regarding genocide during our class, and I would like to address them in this post.
What constitutes genocide is controversial. Even though a legal definition exists, we still debate about its scope, typology, and conditions under which individuals may intervene and who may intervene. What if we include too many things in our definition? Will it dilute its meaning? Is genocide something new or something that has existed even before we gave it a name? For instance, Alex Hinton believes the former. He states that “Genocide… is a product of, not an aberration from, modern social life.”
During our class, we say many types of genocide, ranging from domestic violence to the mass killing of Native Americans. Chad made an excellent point by saying that the killing of the Native Americans is genocide. If this is true, why then do we cherish the perpetrators as our heroes? Andrew Jackson was a President of the United States. In 1812, he was the Hero of the Battle of New Orleans. Mr. Jackson promised the Native Americans to protect them. In fact, he was the one who made them marsh from Georgia to Oklahoma a few years later.
Mass killings are occurring all over the word. The UN Security Council (SC) is responsible for making the decision of intervention in the cases of genocide. But there are five permanent members of the SC (France, China, Russian Federation, the U. S., and the United Kingdom) who can veto this intervention. Why can one country exercise this power and others cannot? What gives them this privilege? Money? We mentioned that in some cases of genocide countries some countries might benefit from mass killings (e.g. France was selling weapons to the African countries when the Rwandan genocide was occurring). Again, is it all about money? If so, what is the price of people’s lives?
The next topic we discussed is how historical narratives are used in modern context, specifically in propaganda. Propaganda is used in order to manipulate collective minds. Politicians use national symbols (e.g. the U. S. flag) and events (e.g. the Ukrainian Famine) to influence the citizens. They use people for achieving their goals. They use symbols in order to cover goals that might be dangerous (e.g. a war). At the Nuremberg trials, Herman Goering, Hitler’s second in command, said
“Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
14 comments:
Thank you, Nadiya, for bringing into our Vera discussion another set of issues related to social justice/injustice—genocide, a spectacular form of political violence. I think it is very problematic and very dangerous to label all forms of political-economic violence as genocide. It would be more fruitful to delineate the similarities and differences in various forms of violence perpetrated by power. What do such forms of violence have in common? In what ways are they different? But it is important to be clear that all forms of violence, even all forms of violence perpetrated by power are just not the same. Nadiya, in your post you state “domestic violence” is genocide. On what basis can you make such a claim?
As you rightly mention, Nadiya, there are different definitions of genocide. The legal definition has a history and a context within which the word emerged and in which the major nation states of the world came to agree on what “it” is. There are also genocide scholars who—after thoroughly studying the phenomenon—have come up with a set of alternative definitions. These alternative definitions do not cancel out the legal definition, but provide specific criteria that must be met before one can apply the term “genocide” to a specific form of spectacular violence. There is no inherent value judgment in these definitions. The point is to define “it” so that we know “it” (genocide) when we see “it.” This is also important so that we may be better able to recognize the patterns in the conditions leading up to genocide in order to better prevent “it” from occurring.
As such, I think it is really important that we know what exactly we are talking about before we invoke terms and labels to phenomena. It’s difficult to talk about whether or not some historical event constitutes “genocide” if we have not thoroughly discussed what experts consider the criteria for genocide to be (compare Helen Fein’s definition with Hinton’s or Charney’s, for example). The Institute for the Study of Genocide is a good starting point for a study of genocide: http://www.instituteforthestudyofgenocide.org/references.html
I’d also like to clarify something Nadiya wrote with reference to Alex Hinton’s statement that “genocide is a product of, not an aberration from modern social life.” His point here is that oftentimes we assume that with modernity (the modern world, the developed world, new technological developments, enlightenment) there will be less violence in the world. That assumption is based, in part, on the notion that society transitions from a lower level (barbarism and savagery) to a higher level (civilization). In other words, that we “progress.” In fact, Hinton (see also Zygmunt Baumann) argues, genocide and other forms of spectacular violence such as war, are directly related to the modern world we have created. When we dismiss the cause of “genocide” to a madman (e.g., Hitler was a madman), that just keeps our eyes closed (mystifies) us to the connections between the modern world and these horrific violent convulsions.
More.....
continued from previous post...
Even if we are not certain ourselves what constitutes genocide, we can discuss the ways in which "genocide" is used for political ends. There have been cases of actual genocide (satisfying the legal definition and/or satisfying the social science criteria) that have at times been ignored (denial that it happened; denial that it is happening) and at times invoked (we suffered genocide therefore we have a right to implement a particular policy) for political ends--including, but not limited to the construction of a national narrative. Nadiya brought in one of those cases (of the Ukranian presidential election). What might be some other cases?
Thank you, Nadiya, for bringing another important topic to the Vera table!
Initially you thought that your topic had very little to do with social justice, but as the discussion progressed, I think we all began to see the link to social justice.
One of the things that stand out to me after the discussion on Thursday is the joke that Professor Stein gave about the "Jews and Irish suffering the most" at the end of the world. This stands out to me because a joke like that may imply a number of things. For example, I hear Professor Waterston alerting us to the different definitions of genocide and then I think about a "scale" or "meter" existing to measure the suffering. Could it be that we try to come up with definitions based on a "scale" to measure the type and amount of suffering? How much suffering and of what type does an event have to be before it can fit into the various shades of the definitions that Professor Waterston provides? Where would each of the incidents that we discussed fit into these shades of structural violence? Most of the incidents that we discussed have sypmtoms of structural violence but it is pinning down or naming the exact type that seems to prove tricky..
Wow Nadiya, strong class, and strong prompt for the blog. That quote that you put up from Herman Goering is very interesting and funny; it’s funny because it’s true. It does not matter what governmental system a nation employs, if the populous can be convinced that there is a threat, regardless of what the threat is, then the machines of war and destruction can be mobilized to any ends.
It is always the belief that a democracy is immune to fascist actions, but Goering’s quote speaks truth to the fact that it does not matter. Andrew Jackson along with other presidents justified the genocide of the Native Americans through the same trope of propaganda and created threats. Many other violent actions by other nations were justified also through this same manner. Genocide is the only logical production of Modernity. It is a direct product of and not as an accident occurrence of modernity. The attempt to modify the world in the image of Europe could only logically lead to the purging of all that was considered different or a threat to the actualization of that goal.
Chad Out!
I love the Vera seminar because rather than leaving with all the answers, I always have more questions. Great job Nadyia!
If genocide requires having the INTENT to exterminate a certain type of people, does the almost total annihilation of the Native Americans not count as genocide? Pestilence and disease were not intentionally passed to the Native Americans, but instead a convenient mistake.
Because African American communities are not being invaded and its people are not shot at point blank range by rebels like some villages in Africa (although some might call police brutality and black on black crime just that), does that make it any less violent or irrelevant that black people in America are being incarcerated at alarming rates, stripped of quality education, and not afforded healthy food options?
If air, water, and food pollution are included in the definition of genocide, then who exactly is the group of people that are being targeted and who is targeting them, considering that we only have one Earth?
So the definition thing is bugging me. I understand that there needs to be a way to call a set actions genocide, and I understand wanting to distinguish between extreme atrocities and those that are less severe. But to me, killing off a particular kind of people, regardless the extent or means is genocide no matter where the definition comes from. And even more importantly, recognition, admission, and correction should be main priorities regarding cultural extinction. But it seems that these definitions are allowing some guilty parties to escape consequences.
I share the same question as Professor Waterston, what makes you label domestic violence genocide?
I wanted to point out something that I found interesting that Lenny said. When I think of genocide I often think solely of mass killings of a population however Lenny brought up a different type of genocide. She shared an example of genocide from Hawaii where there was the death of a language. I hope I am remembering this right. I thought that this was interesting because it seems to me that this could fall under some sort of a definition of genocide but it is often overlooked.
Mmmm, powerful quote . . . Frightening because of the weight of its truth as well as because of who said it. His quote hits our propaganda discussion spot on and summarizes what we are discussing: how a narrative is woven from what was--real or fabricated--and manipulates the public into a set of desirable actions. The enemy mentioned can be real, fake, or even friend and the pacifists are frequently simply over shouted or brushed aside. Not always though . . . and at the least that is encouraging.
I do suspect that increasing the scope of the word genocide would certainly dilute its impact. If mass slaughter of human populations becomes on par with the destruction of a language, or perhaps even with the destruction of an environmental location, we may one day extend the umbrella further to even more obscure things such as the mass destruction of animals or plants--before everyone jumps out of their seats in protest and yell "of course those are genocides" I meant insects and weeds through the use of fertilizer . . . a strange metaphor but I hope you can imagine where things can get blurry.
I kept writing two things down on my notes in class: "intent" and "political." It feels like those are just indispensable when thinking about genocide (as opposed to tragedy, war, etc.). Like Christina said, the destruction of the Native Americans was many things: tragic culture clash (disease), genocide (Trail of Tears, which was both intentional and political), and then today's complex situation involving reservations, alcoholism, and the other intangibles you all have mentioned: loss of language, customs, land.
In a way, this conversation brings us nicely back to one we had early in the fall semester about politics and language (Orwell). He makes the point in that essay that being very careful about choosing words has huge political repercussions. Fuzzy language = fuzzy thinking and in that fuzz comes charging manipulative propaganda like the things you've been mentioning here. Being precise in the words you choose, in how you characterize things, is, according to Orwell, the most important social justice issue.
Nadiya thanks for a great class, its like being in an ICJ class dedicated to Genocide.
I just want to point out that the word intent in the definition of genocide is one to remember and take seriously. Intent is to purposely do something in which one is aware of their actions and the outcome. When I spoke about environmental issues in class such as the chemicals put in food or just the amount of lead found in water, I feel like that is all the governments intent to hurt others. How is it that harmful foods cost less than food that was grown properly? It's sad how governments could play a role in hurting the people.
As you said in your post, President Jackson was known to everyone as the King the best guy in town, but he hurt many Native American lives for it. This becomes an issue because how are we to view these prestigious individuals if they cause harm to others that result in deaths. Do we teach the youth that he was the best, or should we let them wait until they are in college to know that all they learned was a lie to promote patriotism and love for ones country?
Another thing I wanted to tell you was, your topic is apart of social justice. Social justice is something that you feel needs awareness and attention. Its an event, action, and /or issue that you feel should be known to everyone in order to prevent atrocities from happening again. To bring awareness about the severity and diversification genocide can come in (genocide can be seen in many ways other than in vivid mass killings) is important, it makes people in society want to protect their loved ones for the better. Without awareness we would be by standards who would perhaps be lost in how to rebel back to such treatment, or worse we wouldn't know how to fight legally against issues of genocide (if the word/ definition wasn't created).
Thank you for such a great class.
Christina writes: “So the definition thing is bugging me. I understand that there needs to be a way to call a set of actions genocide, and I understand wanting to distinguish between extreme atrocities and those that are less severe. But to me, killing off a particular kind of people, regardless of the extent or means, is genocide no matter where the definition comes from.”
I may have mentioned to the class before about a meeting I once sat in that needed to determine the definition of “overkill” in order to do research on homicides thus classified. It was quite surreal to hear the lengthy arguments over whether ten stab wounds would be needed to constitute overkill, or if nine would suffice. Would a series of bullet wounds have to be at close range or could multiple gunshots be considered excessive, no matter the distance? In some parallel universe, I would consider any murderous intent actualized after someone was already dead to be unnecessary. But in the world of law and of research, these distinctions carry huge implications. Similar definitional issues plague every crime; I remember how when attorney Susan Estrich wrote a book called “Real Rape” about date rape, it revolutionized the way we thought about sexual assault. It eventually changed the law, too.
Thus, the definitions keep evolving. Sometimes they become so inclusive that they lose meaning. I have seen this happen in some research definitions of child abuse. No matter how repugnant any corporeal punishment is to me personally, I would never include spanking in my definition of child abuse (as some researchers do) because we lose the distinction between truly heinous acts and les injurious ones. On the other hand, broader definitions of child abuse have greatly helped to increase awareness of the continuum of behaviors that may infringe the rights of children and be hurtful to their welfare. Thus, over-inclusiveness has its political uses.
Genocide is a particularly interesting place for this conversation. Like “terrorism” it invites comparisons and sometimes even a competition for suffering, as we talked about in class. Does the word genocide lose its power when we enlarge its purview to encompass “cultural” forms rather than purely physical? Or does the malleability of language instead push us to reconsider the ways in which our taxonomies are false creations, like that research scale for “overkill”? Can we hold the fact that language does both things simultaneously-illuminates and obscures-and still make common sense conclusions about what has occurred to Ukrainians or Jews or Native Americans or Africans? Attorney General Edwin Meese famously said that he didn’t need a definition for obscenity because he knew it when he saw it. In the intervening years we have seen just how foolish that was. Without definitions, we have no basis to adjudicate or reform. However, with overly narrow definitions we avoid recognizing many crimes and deny our own complicity and culpability.
Prof. Waterston,
Thank you very much for the detailed explanation of genocide. During our class discussion, Christina mentioned that domestic violence could be viewed as mass killing and, therefore, as genocide, depending on what we want to define as the latter one. But it could be debatable. Domestic violence is a form of structural violence as well as genocide. Also, mostly women are victims of domestic violence what makes it a destruction of a targeted population in whole or in part. Therefore, it really depend show one interprets the legal definition of genocide.
Being an expert in this field, would you please share your thoughts on this subject?
Jamie,
Thank you for bringing an important point of measuring genocide and debate that exists around this matter. But before speaking about it, it would like to mention the debate on its legal definition.
Before the adoption of the 1948 UN Convention on Prevention of Genocide (UNCG), there were numerous political debates over the definition of the term of genocide. Different countries, different cultural experiences, and different understanding and meaning of human suffering led to different perceptions of what genocide is. While one country considers some actions as a crime, another may perceives the same acts as rooted in custom. However, in 1948, the legal definition of genocide was adopted.
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment on the Crime of Genocide (Article 2) defines genocide as:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
There are more debates around the meaning of the words and phrases used to describe the concept of genocide in the UNCG. For example, does the phrase, “in whole” mean the destruction of all the representatives of the group? In fact, there was no genocide committed in the history that resulted in the complete extermination of the entire group of people. Furthermore, scholars debate the meaning of the phrase “in part.” Does “in part” mean a majority, a large percentage of the total population, or the targeting of a specific part of the group? Additionally, does the phase “as such” refer to the fact that a specific group was targeted for destruction? There are no specific explanations of these phrases in the UNCG, and this has led to confusion, which has only exacerbated the debates in the international community.
The International Law Commission stated in its commentary on the 1996 Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind that there should be a specific intent in order to consider genocide an international crime. However, there are debates around the meaning of the phrase “specific intent” because mass killings or wars involve some intent. Therefore, although we try to measure “the type and amount of suffering” that people have to experience so it could be viewed as genocide, it is difficult to do.
Do you think that we should use this legal definition (because it is legal), even though it is not clear and it could be interpreted differently?
Chad,
Thank you for nice words! You mentioned in your blog that “genocide is the only logical product of modernity.” Do you think that any type of violence (that might involve killings) is something that was created recently? Also, we spoke during our class that mass killings existed from the Bible times, but people did not have a proper name for it. Can we consider those killings genocide?
Christina,
You are a real fighter! I like your enthusiasm! We definitely need prevention of mass killings. Prof. Waterston mentioned that sociologists were looking at the patterns of genocide in order to prevent its occurrence. How can we prevent genocide? What corrections should be made? Is it only money compensation? How much money should be paid to those who lost their beloved?
Katie,
The example that Lenny provided could be viewed as cultural genocide. Do you have any other examples of cultural genocide?
Alex,
Thank you for your interesting response. You mentioned that “increasing the scope of the word genocide will dilute its meaning”, do not you think its scope is really broad now? And as you mentioned that genocide could be applied towards people as well as to natural resources (e.g. water). Should we define genocide more specifically (narrower) so its meaning (impact) will not become blurry?
Thank you Prof. Reitz for bringing us back to the fall semester. It is good that you reminded us how important propaganda is in every aspect of life, especially in politics. Can anyone provide a recent example of how propaganda was used in politics?
Jessica,
I hoped that you liked the topic because of your major. I think you brought up an important idea of how differently we treat people, as heroes or villains, depending on who has power in the country. In the case of Ukraine, all evidence about the famine was hidden. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, it became available. During the Soviet times, those who gave an order to commit famine were heroes. In the independent Ukraine, they became villains. Specifically, in May 2009, the Security Service of Ukraine started a criminal case regarding the Holodomor. The court examined the case filed by the Security Service and upheld “investigators’ conclusions that the leaders of the totalitarian Bolshevik regime organized … the genocide against the Ukrainian ethnic group intentionally creating conditions aimed at its partial physical elimination,” (RIA Novosti, January 13, 2010). In a ruling on January 13, 2010, the court found Joseph Stalin, Vyacheslav Molotov, Lazar Kaganovich, Stanislav Kosior, Pavel Postyshev and others guilty of committing the crime of genocide against the Ukrainian people in 1932-1933. The court, however, dropped the charges against the Bolshevik leaders due to their deaths.
Also, I would like to add one more quote that proves the point made by Chad and Alex that no matter who is in power (whether we have a democracy or a totalitarian regime) historical events could be use for influencing/manipulating crowds:
History as an academic discipline is eroded by the way that governments and politicians – of quite different political ideologies – seek to use the past and to shape popular memory and public history as part of their nation- and state-building projects” (Reis, 2005, 232).
Prof. Stein,
I agree that it is important to have a proper definition for a crime in order to fight for reforms. But what should we do if we have a debatable definition of genocide (or any other crime)? Should the international community improve the definition first or should they work on adopting the needed reforms?
Post a Comment