I think the arguments brought up had fantastic
points. The question we are all trying to answer, as I understand it is:
can we use the word “genocide” to define events that differ from the holocaust?
The main arguments as I can tell, have roughly been:
1.
No:
-Using the term to define events
(particularly ones on smaller scales) is not appropriate because it belittles
the experience of those persecuted in the Holocaust.
-The term “genocide” refers only to events
with “intent” and it is harder to prove intent in these modern examples (ex:
violence against black and Latino populations and culture)
-The word has many implications, including
legal ones. It should be used with extreme caution.
-It is not worth it to define something as
genocide if it means harming modern relationships with another nation. (I don’t
think anyone in the class has agreed with this perspective).
-(In
response to Brooklyn) The “black experience” was not genocide because a lack of
concern about a population is not the same as intentional extermination in the
interest of creating a superior race. *(See below for further clarification).
2.
Yes and we should:
-We need to take seriously modern
violence against populations/cultures. Use of the word genocide is important
specifically because of its implications.
-Genocide on the scale of the
Holocaust will not happen again, therefore we must accept that modern genocide
looks different and label it genocide regardless.
I think ultimately the problem still rests in not having a
uniform definition of genocide. We have been hoping back and forth between the
definition from the U.N. (which Brooklyn quotes in his post) and the original
definition by Lempkin. I propose that the problem is that both of these
definitions are inadequate. The one from the U.N. is, as we have discussed,
simultaneously vague and narrow. The definition from Lempkin feels a little too
focused on culture (is burning a library genocide?) and I don’t like his perspectives on “weaker nations.” I
think a modern definition would somehow also have to reflect that the world has
changed since the end of WWII and will continue to do so.
I am still on the fence about whether I think the “black
experience” and the treatment of Latinos in the United States should count as
genocide, because while I think these populations are/were horrendously
mistreated, I am not sure I see the intent of total
destruction of culture/population. Before class on Tuesday I was leaning
towards “not genocide,” but after class discussion (and particularly after
Dumancic compared my argument to Turkey’s “lack of intent” argument) I am
tempted to change my mind.
In reference to Rosemary’s post: I am actually not at all
convinced that a holocaust will not happen again. Rosemary says that, “modern
forms of technology and communication might, and hopefully will, prevent
genocide from occurring in such a systematic manner.” I think if anything, this
class has made me less confident in our global community and good nature of the
common man/woman.
So for Brooklyn’s final question: “who benefits from
withholding genocide terminology from the treatment of people of color in the
U.S.?” If there are in the future, more holocausts like the one in Nazi
Germany, it might be necessary to have a way to distinguish them from racism/slavery etc. Again this depends on how we choose to define genocide. If we really do not think the Holocaust was different from the "Black or Latino experience" than I have no argument for why we cannot use the term genocide for both. On a similar note, there might be some justification in wanting to use the term genocide just for the sake of getting more global attention paid to human rights violations. I just think we need to consider how using the term genocide will effect victims, current and future.
Clarification for my perspective on Brooklyn’s argument:
*I think one could make the argument that what occurred in the
antebellum and post civil war South was not genocide. While treating the black
population as inferior and not deserving of basic human rights, I don’t believe
that there was conscious and systematic intent to get rid of the population
entirely. That may have only been because there was value in the exploitation
of the population, but regardless I am not entirely convinced the term genocide
should be used.
Also, totally unrelated, I really enjoyed Brooklyns use of hashtags, definitely laughed out loud when I first saw "#Turkey."
Sam, thank you for taking the time to respond - it's a good move to draw in more voices from the class. There are a few things I want to clear up.
ReplyDeleteYou say, " The “black experience” was not genocide because a lack of concern about a population is not the same as intentional extermination in the interest of creating a superior race "
I agree that 'lack of concern about a population is not the same as intentional extermination in the interest of creating a superior race " -- I also think this fails to represent both 1. our country's calculated maltreatment of black Americans; 2. its reasons for doing so. I don't want to revisit my previous post too much, but forced sterilization, for example, definitely exhibits more than lack of concern; it was ideologically and financially supported by the federal budget! (I recommend Dorothy Roberts' "Killing the Black Body" - she is visiting Oberlin soon)
In the context of U.S. genocide, racial purity is not the end-goal; political and economic dominance is. It is maintained through a racial caste (as opposed to class) system. Genocide as extermination, in the long run, does not serve the interests of dominant society. It is roughly analogous to a slave master's purposes for not killing its slaves. Lemkin makes two things clear which do not surface too much in our discussions - 1. genocide as the intent to permanently cripple a group; 2. Targeting an entire group, or a group *in part* constitutes genocide. This is why we can have a black president. The people in charge are not threatened by color-blind embodiments of the American dream; in fact, it helps bolster the myth that we live in an equal, just society.
The average black family has never made much more than half of that of the average white family. White people have higher life expectancies than black people. Amnesty International tells us that "Even though blacks and whites are murder victims in nearly equal numbers of crimes, 80% of people executed since the death penalty was reinstated have been executed for murders involving white victims," and, "More than 20% of black defendants who have been executed were convicted by all-white juries." Again, I ask, would you, individually, argue against use of the term genocide?
I totally agree with you in that the UN's understanding of genocide is simultaneously broad and narrow; I just don't perceive it as a problem.
If something's genocidal legitimacy seems hazy or ambiguous, I say to round-up. This isn't about one-upmanship of collective horror; it is about protecting the diversity of this planet from waning any further than it has already. Another side note - I don't think we should think of the nazi holocaust as a necessarily valuable point of reference for other forms of genocide. Lake Erie and the Indian Ocean may not contain the same creatures, but both are bodies of water.
Sam concludes with a suggestion which I would like to echo: let us "consider how using the term genocide will effect victims, current and future". Right now, one in six Americans does not know where their next meal will come from - this is worse than the global average. The Amerikan genocide, which is characterized by imperialist intentions of divide-and-conquer dominance (rather than simple extermination), relies on a hegemonic status quo. In the long-term, Victims and unknowing perpetrators would all benefit from truth and reconciliation regarding what brought us here and where we should go from here, in a way which is -finally- democratic and just.
does this story relate to what we're talking about?
is it an exceptional case?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/family-of-trayvon-martin-_n_1332756.html
Brooklyn: thank you for the response!
DeleteBefore responding I feel the need to write that I am not trying to say that the black population in the United States has suffered less than the populations we are learning about in class. I also do not think that their oppression deserves less attention. I recognize that this is a very emotional subject. I am not trying to personally withhold the term genocide from the black population. I speak as a member of this class, and as such, want to help shed light on alternative arguments.
In my post I argued that, “The ‘black experience’ was not genocide because a lack of concern about a population is not the same as intentional extermination in the interest of creating a superior race.” Brooklyn used the U.N. definition of genocide as the basis for his original argument. According to its definition, genocide can be whole or in part so intended extermination of the entire population is not necessary for use of the term. That’s true and a great point; I did not consider that in my argument, however, I still think there are differences that are important to think about.
1. Intent to exploit is different from intent to destroy.
When the U.N. definition says, "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such…" it implies that one can commit any of the acts WITHOUT intent to destroy, otherwise the list of acts would be sufficient.
Destruction alone does not qualify genocide; intent qualifies genocide. Intentional destruction, if successful, cannot end in any way other than destruction. Nazis, if successful, would have killed every last Jew. White southerners, if successful, probably would have reinstituted slavery.
2. In order to make an argument qualifying something as genocide we need to agree on the definition of genocide. I do not like either definition we are discussing (provided by Lemkin or the U.N.) and so it is somewhat useless for me to try to qualify something as genocide by referencing them.
What, for example, is meant by “part,” and how much of a “part” is needed? Lemkin says genocide is “crippling a population.” What, then, is the difference between oppression and genocide? (For surely there is one).
The U.N. definition of genocide is also largely descriptive and I think it needs to be proscriptive, meaning that the definition is based on a list of possible qualifications, rather than a real definition. In my opinion, an adequate definition would be able to say, “genocide is x” and “genocide is not x.”
I think there is a difference in the types of "genocide" we are talking about and we do need to be able to make a distinction. The term “genocide” as we currently use it, for better or worse, alludes to the Holocaust and has weight specifically because of that.
The purpose of the legal definition of genocide, as far as I can tell, is to determine the manifestations of oppression that require international interference. I’m not sure what the international community should be responsible for, but I do think that if we say that all types of oppression are under the umbrella of “genocide” we risk losing the weight the word currently has and making intervention in other situations even less likely than it already is.