If we as a class have looked critically at the controversy over nomenclature surrounding the Armenian Genocide, I believe we must also look critically at Stalin's mass murders. I'd like to start by giving a working definition of genocide that we as a class have agreed on. However, this can't be the case as we really haven't agreed on anything, just as historians can't agree. It seems as all events must be defined on a case by case basis, with intent being the primary deciding factor, and scale being the least important factor. To me, the intent to wipe out a group of peoples because of who they are is most important. The definition of these targeted groups of people is most easily done through religion or ethnicity, because they are self-defined groups.
Who did Stalin imprison, expel, and kill? Counterrevolutionaries. Some may argue that his mass murders do not constitute a genocide because they were his own people, and there was no cultural eradication. Indeed, within the "national in form, socialist in context" refrain, individuals could keep their national heritage alive within the context of the USSR. However, Stalin would not have seen counterrevolutionaries as his own countrymen, as they were traitors or saboteurs going against the socialist cause.
But because technically anyone could be labeled a counterrevolutionary, how defined of a social group is that? The woman who was ten minutes late to work and was sent to the labor camps, who is to say that she defined as such? Or the man whose truck got stuck in the mud? In essence, all evidence points towards the other way, that her unintentional lateness was not an example of sabotage. Besides these extreme examples, however, Stalin also targeted the bourgeoisie with the creation of the kulak class. If the killings had been limited to this group of people, that would make an easier case for genocide. But because anyone could be a counterrevolutionary, even Trotsky and heroes from 1917, the case for genocide is difficult to make.
Liz raises a variety of important questions. I, for one, recognize personal politics as a facet of one's personal identity. Understanding political affiliation and organization through a lens of identity easily configures this type of extreme political repression into a model of genocide understood as group-based harm.
ReplyDeletePracticing group-based murder, terror, imprisonment, land theft, neglect, etc, to the logical end-point of that [political] group's destruction, it is genocide.
I definitely agree that it gets tricky in Stalin's case: there isn't an easily identifiable, clearly delineated, singular group which composed the bulk of his horrific hit list.
However, I don't think this means it wasn't genocide; it might mean it was an exceptionally complicated genocide -- one which disrupts the logic stating the holocaust = genocide; genocide = the holocaust.
In addition, Stalin's reign of terror is a really good jump-off point for exploring the genocidal implications/consequences of the U.S.-backed coupes in Latin American and all over the world from the 1950's-on (Indonesia, then Iran, Angola, Argentina, Guatemala....long list...)
Most people disagree that this constitutes genocide; on some levels, I sympathize. It is not right to 'cheapen' a term reserved for the worse of the worst. I'd like to challenge us to substitute the words/concepts of '[biological] life'and 'self-determination'.
When the descendants of a pre-colonial ethno-linguistic group can only communicate in english, that ethno-linguistic group is dead. If someone's imprisoned until death based on politics, skin-color, class, and/or religion/etc, their life has been taken away/ended/dehumanized/invalidated --
if this is part of a group-process rather than an individual narrative, genocide has occurred.
Otherwise, I see very little value in the term/concept.
Both of you raise crucial and valid points. I have been struggling with these same issues myself, especially in the context of Stalinism. I too believe that political affiliation is a part of a person’s identity and should be protected. I believe the reason that we (those in this class, the wider academic community, and the international community as a whole) struggle so much with political identity as an identifiable group that should be protected under the genocide convention is due to the strong similarities AND the strong differences between political identity and cultural/ethnic/religious identity. A characteristic shared by all these identities is their ability to be imposed upon a population, whether or not that group self-identifies with that categorization (the Holocaust saw many “Jews” who in no way identified with the religion or Jewish cultural history being sent to concentration camps and executed: Stalinism saw the purging and execution of Communist stalwarts who were labeled “capitalists” or spies by Stalin). Also, those who did identify with the “enemy” identities experienced targeted persecution, whether Jew, gypsy, Jehovah, or homosexual in Nazi Germany or peasants who fought for their property rights in the Soviet Union. In this sense, an argument could be made that since the persecution of ethnic/religious/cultural identities is considered genocide, whether or not those persecuted identify with these identities, then political identity should also be protected under the Genocide Convention.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I feel that there are significant differences between political identity and cultural/religious/ethnic identity. First, although some may argue against this, I cannot see one's political identification as an “inherent” quality of the individual. Political identity is something that is appropriated throughout one’s lifetime, whereas one’s nationality or ethnicity is completely beyond an individual’s control (being solely based on the ethnicity of your parents and the country you were born in). It is much more difficult to differentiate between the “inherent-ness” of political and religious identity. However, political identity does differ in some ways from religious identity in that religion is typically more associated with cultural identity than politics are (think of the United States; one could easily say that the US is culturally Christian, but it would be much more difficult to argue that the US is either culturally Democratic or Republican). Genocide in some ways is beyond politics; it is the hatred and extermination of a group based on inherent or perceived to be inherent characteristics. In another way, genocide is politics; it is often used to advance a particular political or ideological model, whether that be racial superiority in Nazi Germany or Communist ideology in Stalinist Russia.
I am not arguing that political identity was not used genocidally by the Stalin regime. However (and this might be the politics major/international law focus coming out in me), I feel that genocide has a very specific meaning and that political persecution is protected under different categories (crimes against humanity, war crimes, human rights customary law, etc.). Political persecution should be punished. But I am still uncertain as to whether that should be under the term “genocide” (I am always open to changing my mind however and would be happy to hear people’s thoughts on the matter).
Discussion here is about identity and not intent.
ReplyDeleteI would like to complicate the way we view political/economic/ideological/ethnic/religious/national identity as it relates to genocide. I believe genocide occurs when there is a strong discernable link between categorization from above and self-categorization. That is, the label the genocider assigns the potential victim group “matches” the way the victim group labels itself.
In order to use that definition of genocide (which concerns only identity, and not intent) we must ask ourselves several questions.
1. what does self identifying mean?
a. Agreeing to label yourself , and seeing the label in some degree accurate and representative of the aspect of you it supposedly describes
b. Seeing yourself as in some form related to other individuals who self identify using the same label
c.
2. What are the ways in which we categorize categories (group certain identity labels together), and are these actually different (ethnic vs. national, cultural vs. religious, linguistic vs. economic and so on…)
a. Political
i. I would like to make a quick clarification. I see the soviet case as one of economic categories, with the economic status being politicized by the nature of the state. Latin America would be a better example of political groups being targeted.
ii. Can be fluid- changes through out one’s lifetime
iii. It is a choice
iv. Relates to a system that is in itself unstable and imposed from above (nation-state system, democracy, authoritarianism, communism, and so forth, dictate the degree of political affiliation allowed) if we talk about political affiliation, and not just ideology, the state supplies the “options” you can choose from
v. Not inherent
vi. And to challenge all these: often political affiliation is closely related to your economic condition, opportunities, and political/democratic education. In some way, it is inherent and not chosen (Chile is a good example of this)
b. Nationality or ethnicity
i. Beyond one’s control because depends on parents (ethnicity) and place of birth (nationality)
ii. Some ideas that challenge this: immigration, exile, different labeling of nationality or ethnicity practices throughout time, geography, and community, parents from different ethnicities and nationalities, ethnicity and nationality not “matching”, heritage not known
c. Religion
d. Culture
e. All of these overlap and inter/intra-relate in every possible way
3. What is the significance of these categories to genocide?
a. I think: the way the victim group self identifies. If a group is targeted as generally the group it sees itself to be (whether in name, membership, or other things. Obviously there will be disagreement about the qualities and characteristics of the group) then genocide has occurred (At least with regards to identity)
Lastly, I think genocide is exactly politics. Hatred and extermination of a group can exist and does on an individual level (so they can have genocidal desires…) but genocide exists when that becomes a part of the political system, institutions, and given functions of controlling power, whether it is a means or an end.