I,
like many of those from my generation, grew up reading the Harry Potter
series. The series introduced me
to many complex concepts that helped guide my understanding of the world
throughout my childhood. People
often point to the important themes like dealing with death and doing what is
right versus what is easy, but I would argue that Harry Potter also helped
introduce me to the very difficult notion of genocide. I do not know how old I was when I
first started drawing connections between Voldemort’s persecution of
muggle-borns and Hitler’s persecution of the Jews, but it is definitely a
connection I discussed with other members of family. Both Hitler and Voldemort focus obsessively on the notion of
blood purity. Just as the
genealogy of Jews was very closely examined in Germany, the Ministry of Magic
establishes a Muggle-Born Registration Commission, which relies heavily the
atmosphere of fear and nepotism seen in Nazi Germany. By confiscating muggle-borns’ wands, the Ministry prevented
muggle-borns from being able to make a living in the magical world, similar to
how Germans destroyed and boycotted Jewish owned shops. Additionally, both muggle-borns and
Jewish Germans were banned from the school systems. Though Voldemort never implemented systematized mass-murder,
reports of unprovoked deaths and disappearances of muggle-borns and their
allies were frequent during Voldemort’s reign. By introducing young audiences to these dark concepts,
Rowling helps readers develop an understanding of the dangerous implications of
systemized prejudice. Voldemort is
a very archetypal modern villain, resembling many of the authoritarian leaders
of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. In reading Harry Potter, children (hopefully) learn to judge
people by the nature of their character and not the purity of their blood. They also learn to recognize and
protest the types of language and actions that can progress into full-blown
genocide. The Harry Potter series
is an effective way to introduce young audiences to the concept of genocide, a
concept that is essential to understand when studying the recent history of the
world.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Mexican-Americans in the United States
Mexicans in the United States are often
treated as second-class citizens, regardless of legal status. Although I do not believe the treatment
of this population qualifies as genocide, there are many comparable overlaps
such as “us-and-them” rhetoric that describes Mexican immigration as a threat
to our national identity, the use of Mexicans as scapegoats for poor economic
conditions, and government enforced population displacement.
In his book, The Latino Threat, Constructing
Immigrants, Citizens, and the Nation, Leo R. Chavez describes how Latino immigration
is seen as a threat to the United States. Mexicans, he says, have become a
“legally racialized ethnic group” through use of “labels that are socially and culturally
constructed based on perceived innate or biological differences and imbued with
meanings about relative social worth.”[1]
Mexican immigrants are often stereotyped in public discourse as being
uneducated, failing to assimilate, consuming public resources and taking jobs
from deserving non-Latino Americans.
The Mexican-U.S. boarder, which before
1848 was much further north than it is today, has created conflict around
immigration policy between the two nations. Restrictions on Mexican immigration
to the United States have fluctuated in the past. In the 1920s when the U.S.
economy was booming, Mexican immigration was encouraged and “many employers,
assisted at times by government-sponsored ‘bracero programs,’ recruited men”
for labor.[2]
When the great depression hit
attitudes changed drastically and the Mexican population was targeted as a
scapegoat for the bad economy. “In a frenzy of anti-Mexican hysteria, wholesale
punitive measures were proposed and undertaken by government officials at the
federal, state, and local levels. Laws were passed depriving Mexicans of jobs
in the public and private sectors. Immigration and deportation laws were
enacted to restrict emigration and hasten the departure of those already here…[and]
an incessant cry of ‘get rid of the Mexicans’ swept the country.”[3]
Ultimately, over a million Mexican-Americans, (many of which were U.S. citizens)
were forced to move out of the United States and “back” into Mexico in what is
now known as the “Mexican Repatriation,” an event largely ignored or about
forgotten today.
Mexican
culture is often targeted as an invading and threatening force within the United
States. In the current republican presidential campaign, for example, many
candidates have promised extreme anti-immigration programs including building a
35-foot double fence, employing thousands of Department of Homeland Security
personnel to patrol the border, and use of an e-verify system that would allow
employers to check on the legal status of job applicants.[4]
Rapael Lemkin’s definition of genocide focuses on the destruction or attempted
destruction of a culture. While Mexican culture persists in Mexico, it has been
attacked within the United States. Arizona, for example, has recently banned
ethnic studies programs, specifically ones teaching Mexican-American history.[5]
[1] Chavez, Leo
R. The Latino Threat: Constructing Immigrants, Citizens, and the Nation.
Stanford, CA: Stanford UP, 2008. Print. (p. 24).
[2] Romero,
Mary, Pierrette Hondagneu-Sotelo, and Vilma Ortiz. Challenging Fronteras. New
York: Routledge, 1997. Print. (p. 116).
[3] Balderrama,
Francisco E., and Raymond Rodriguez. Decade of Betrayal: Mexican Repatriation
in the 1930s. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, 1995. Print. (p. 1).
[4] Full
Transcript: CNN Arizona Republican Presidential Debate Feb, 22, 2012."
Ironic Surrealism. Web. 22 Feb. 2012.
<http://ironicsurrealism.com/2012/02/23/full-transcript-cnn-arizona-republican-presidential-debate-feb-22-2012/>.
[5] 20, Gregory
Rodriguez February. "Why Arizona Banned Ethnic Studies." Los Angeles
Times. 20 Feb. 2012. Web.
<http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rodriguez-ethnic-studies-20120220%2C0%2C773799.column>.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
The Importance of Cultural Heritage
Raphael Lemkin on
genocide (in his own words - reproduced by A. Dirk Moses): “‘[M]ass-murder or
extermination do not convey the elements of selection and do not indicate the
losses in terms of culture represented by the nation’s victims.’”[1] In other words, Lemkin’s definition of
genocide focuses on the destruction of a culture rather than restricting the
word to mass killings.
To elaborate: in A. Dirk Moses’ analysis, Lemkin
believed that “[g]enocide could occur...when libraries, houses of religious worship,
and other elite institutions of cultural transmission were destroyed, even if
the mass of the population survived and continued some hybrid popular culture.”[2] This can lead to potentially confusing
conclusions - as Moses again reports, there were those who believed “it showed
‘a lack of logic and of a sense of proportion to include in the same
[definition] both mass murder in gas chambers and the closing of libraries.’”[3]
Such a viewpoint as Lemkin's,
especially when considered in the aforementioned context of human interest, can
seem at best the product of a mind trapped in an ivory tower, and at worst
grossly callous. Holding such a
viewpoint requires one to place utmost importance in the preservation of
culture (as opposed to, potentially, human life). This is perhaps an unfairly polarizing characterization –
humans (when not committing genocide) surely ascribe at least slightly more
value to the lives of others than to the preservation of a ‘culture.’ Don’t they?
Probably. That does not mean, however, that an
‘average’ person does not ascribe importance to the protection of their
cultural heritage.
Consider recent
and ongoing events in Afghanistan.
What the New York Times has reported as two NATO personnel burning
approximately ten to fifteen copies of the Koran (allegedly sans knowledge of
the act’s significance) has incited massive riots in Afghanistan with massive
international implications.[4] Official apologies from the highest
levels (General John Allen of NATO and President Obama) have been issued for
the burning. Afghanistan’s
stability is at stake.
People are dying.[5]
While it would be
close-minded to attribute the explosive response solely to the sacrilegious
Koran-burning (U.S.-Afghani relations weren’t particularly rosy before the
incident), the tremendous popular reaction offers a strong argument against the
implied criticism of Lemkin’s emphasis on the cultural aspect of genocide as
‘too academic.’ The average person
- or at least the average Afghani - clearly cares about their cultural heritage
and will go to great lengths to protect it if they feel it threatened. Sometimes, as evidenced by the
Afghanistan riots, said average person will prioritize the preservation of said
heritage ahead of the preservation of their own life. Which means Lemkin, in ascribing importance to culture in
his definition of genocide, was far from an out-of-touch academic, but instead
party to an impulse buried deep within the human soul. He got it. And, given the right set of
circumstances, so, apparently, do we.
[1] A. Dirk Moses, “Raphael Lemkin,
Culture, and the Concept of Genocide,”
in The Oxford Handbook of Genocide
Studies, eds. Donald Bloxham and A. Dirk Moses (New York: Oxford University
Press), 28, quoting “Memorandum from Raphael Lemkin to R. Kempner, 5 June
1946. United States Holocaust Memorial
Museum, R. Kempner Papers (RS 71.001).
[2] Moses, 29.
[3] Moses, 38, quoting Matthew Lippman,
“The Drafting of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide’, Boston University International Law Journal 3:1
(1985), 45.
[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/world/asia/nato-commander-apologizes-for-koran-disposal-in-afghanistan.html?pagewanted=2&sq=koran%20burning&st=cse&scp=5
[5] http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/damage-control-again-in-afghanistan/?scp=1&sq=koran%20burning&st=cse
French Bill on Armenian Genocide
NY Times Article: French Council Strikes Down Bill on Armenian Genocide Denial
On February 28th, the French Constitutional Council struck down a bill that would have criminalized the act of denying that the Armenian genocide occurred, specifically by Ottoman Turks. The bill was backed by Nicolas Sarkozy, who vowed to resubmit the bill with different language. The opposition, by French and Turkish politicians, to the bill was that "the legislature did unconstitutional harm to the exercise of freedom of expression and communication.” This sequence of legal and political events brings up the issue of the importance of language when discussing genocide. Lawmakers across the political spectrum in France said that "it was not the place of the legislature to impose its own explanation for the hundreds of thousands of Armenian deaths that began in 1915, amid the chaos of World War I and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire."
One question is when did Turks begin this campaign of denial? Was the Ottman-Turkish public ever fully aware of the extent of the genocide committed against the Armenians? It would have been difficult for the Ottoman-Turks to know about the ethnic cleansing that took place, during WWI, at the time of the war because communication was not nearly as rapid and advanced as it is today. If this denial of the events that occurred began before communication technologies were advanced in these areas, it would be hard to suddenly change the mind of the people, who now have access to many sources on the internet that detail the facts of the Armenian genocide.
The accusation that it is not the place of the French lawmakers to dictate history is a fair one, but it is important to note that amongst historians and experts on the events in WWI the general consensus is that 1.5 million Armenians were systematically killed by Ottoman Turkish troops. Despite this fact, "Turkey maintains that no more than 500,000 Armenians died, with many of them victims of starvation or exposure, and not targeted killings." It is also important to recognize that historians and academics on the subject do not have much sway or power in influencing the beliefs of the general public and that it is admirable of France to try to get this genocide recognized out of respect and sympathy for the Armenian people.
Discussing genocide today and in the last half century has been different than in times before Lemkin because genocide was not an established, recognized academic term. Thinking about the horrific phenomenon of genocide is different when instances of it can be compared to each other and common patterns can be recognized to qualify these instances. Since the term has such strong connotations, the Turkish people are likely very hesitant to admit what happened to the Armenian people because they do not want themselves to be compared with the Nazi regime in Germany during WWII. When historic facts are disputed about the number of deaths and geopolitical intentions of these killings that is a serious case of denial. However, when the term genocide is one of the things that keeps the Turkish people from admitting what happened in Anatolia, that is a product of how the discussion about genocide has changed in the discussion on it today because of the terminology.
On February 28th, the French Constitutional Council struck down a bill that would have criminalized the act of denying that the Armenian genocide occurred, specifically by Ottoman Turks. The bill was backed by Nicolas Sarkozy, who vowed to resubmit the bill with different language. The opposition, by French and Turkish politicians, to the bill was that "the legislature did unconstitutional harm to the exercise of freedom of expression and communication.” This sequence of legal and political events brings up the issue of the importance of language when discussing genocide. Lawmakers across the political spectrum in France said that "it was not the place of the legislature to impose its own explanation for the hundreds of thousands of Armenian deaths that began in 1915, amid the chaos of World War I and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire."
One question is when did Turks begin this campaign of denial? Was the Ottman-Turkish public ever fully aware of the extent of the genocide committed against the Armenians? It would have been difficult for the Ottoman-Turks to know about the ethnic cleansing that took place, during WWI, at the time of the war because communication was not nearly as rapid and advanced as it is today. If this denial of the events that occurred began before communication technologies were advanced in these areas, it would be hard to suddenly change the mind of the people, who now have access to many sources on the internet that detail the facts of the Armenian genocide.
The accusation that it is not the place of the French lawmakers to dictate history is a fair one, but it is important to note that amongst historians and experts on the events in WWI the general consensus is that 1.5 million Armenians were systematically killed by Ottoman Turkish troops. Despite this fact, "Turkey maintains that no more than 500,000 Armenians died, with many of them victims of starvation or exposure, and not targeted killings." It is also important to recognize that historians and academics on the subject do not have much sway or power in influencing the beliefs of the general public and that it is admirable of France to try to get this genocide recognized out of respect and sympathy for the Armenian people.
Discussing genocide today and in the last half century has been different than in times before Lemkin because genocide was not an established, recognized academic term. Thinking about the horrific phenomenon of genocide is different when instances of it can be compared to each other and common patterns can be recognized to qualify these instances. Since the term has such strong connotations, the Turkish people are likely very hesitant to admit what happened to the Armenian people because they do not want themselves to be compared with the Nazi regime in Germany during WWII. When historic facts are disputed about the number of deaths and geopolitical intentions of these killings that is a serious case of denial. However, when the term genocide is one of the things that keeps the Turkish people from admitting what happened in Anatolia, that is a product of how the discussion about genocide has changed in the discussion on it today because of the terminology.
Bullying in Japan: "Discrimination in a Homogenous Society"
After our discussion in class today, I found an article on bullying in Japan among school-age children and how sociologists use the homogenous society of the country to examine a different set of interactions. Unlike the United States and most of Europe as well, the population of Japan is almost completely made up of native people without any other ethnic, lingual, or cultural backgrounds. While the genocides that we have studied thus far have centered around one ethnic group targeting another, usually a minority, there are no such groups in the hallways of Japanese schools. Yet children still manage to find differences among one another and use them to exert power and authority over victims.
The author of the article, Charlie Atsushi Inoue, identifies the main characteristics of bullying in Japanese schools. First, Inoue cites the conditions of when academic pressure is at its highest. The social structure that surrounds Japanese school-age children is one of intense competition where value is measured by success. In this sense, looking at Dadrian's argument of the local analysis as being key to understanding the dynamic of a people is applicable because the society of Japan is an individual one that would be lost in a both a macro and microhistorical viewpoint. However, Atsushi Inoue also refers to the home life and family of both victim and bully as being triggers for their behavior, which goes against Dadrian's dismissal of personal psychoanalysis of those involved in genocide as a window into why it occurs. Perhaps the combination of these two different lenses provides the best viewpoint in the case of the Japanese.
Atsushi Inoue then identifies the victims as transfer students that are targeted before they can fully integrate into the new school system. He argues that the ethnic diversity of the US makes it far more accepting of outsiders, and that bullying is usually restricted to group-on-group of differently identifying people, whereas in Japan, those who are considered different do not have that other group to identify with because of the homogenous setting. Thus, the bullying is more group-on-individual. It is interesting how this relates so intensely to Dadrian's point of minorities being vulnerable in multiple ways, mostly because they do not have a home country to stand behind them. In the case of the Japanese, they all have the same background but the transfer students Atsushi Inoue sees as the common victims do not have the stability of the school life. They are the vulnerable minority in the homogenous setting.
http://educationinjapan.wordpress.com/education-system-in-japan-general/our-children-are-being-bullied/bullying-behavior-in-japanese-schoolsdiscrimination-in-a-homogeneous-society/
The author of the article, Charlie Atsushi Inoue, identifies the main characteristics of bullying in Japanese schools. First, Inoue cites the conditions of when academic pressure is at its highest. The social structure that surrounds Japanese school-age children is one of intense competition where value is measured by success. In this sense, looking at Dadrian's argument of the local analysis as being key to understanding the dynamic of a people is applicable because the society of Japan is an individual one that would be lost in a both a macro and microhistorical viewpoint. However, Atsushi Inoue also refers to the home life and family of both victim and bully as being triggers for their behavior, which goes against Dadrian's dismissal of personal psychoanalysis of those involved in genocide as a window into why it occurs. Perhaps the combination of these two different lenses provides the best viewpoint in the case of the Japanese.
Atsushi Inoue then identifies the victims as transfer students that are targeted before they can fully integrate into the new school system. He argues that the ethnic diversity of the US makes it far more accepting of outsiders, and that bullying is usually restricted to group-on-group of differently identifying people, whereas in Japan, those who are considered different do not have that other group to identify with because of the homogenous setting. Thus, the bullying is more group-on-individual. It is interesting how this relates so intensely to Dadrian's point of minorities being vulnerable in multiple ways, mostly because they do not have a home country to stand behind them. In the case of the Japanese, they all have the same background but the transfer students Atsushi Inoue sees as the common victims do not have the stability of the school life. They are the vulnerable minority in the homogenous setting.
http://educationinjapan.wordpress.com/education-system-in-japan-general/our-children-are-being-bullied/bullying-behavior-in-japanese-schoolsdiscrimination-in-a-homogeneous-society/
Why, Hillary, Why?
New York State senator Hillary Clinton has recently referred to the Armenian genocide as a matter of "historical debate," sparking protest from both the Armenian National Committee of America and the lead authors of the Armenian Genocide Resolution, Adam Schiff and Robert Dold. Having been presented with irrefutable evidence that a genocide did indeed occur, I was shocked and ashamed to discover that such a widely- regarded representative of our government was so ignorant of the facts.
However, it did prompt me to wonder about how the American population views the Armenian genocide (if they do at all). Thinking back to my high school days, I realized that I had never, in any of my history classes, heard mention of an Armenian genocide. What little I had known about it before this class had been gleaned from non-reliable sources such as Wikipedia. As someone who has had access to a good education, it stands to reason that I knew more about the genocide than the average American.
This lack of knowledge is significant because it corresponds to our government's reluctance to officially acknowledge the Armenian genocide, which both dishonors the memory of the survivors and encourages the Turkish government to continue their campaign of denial. It also prevents the American public from learning about and developing interest in the drive for official United States recognition of the genocide, which has been promised by Presidents Clinton and Obama but never delivered.
The motivations for the US government's refusal to acknowledge the Armenian situation as a genocide brings to mind an argument presented by Mark Levene in his article, "Why Is the Twentieth Century the Century of Genocide?" Levene claims that powerful states act within their own interests when it comes to preventing a genocide or recognizing that one has occurred. Turkey is a powerful ally due to its proximity to the unstable Middle East, and the Turkish government has actually threatened the safety of American troops if the Armenian Genocide Resolution is passed.
The United States government's reasoning is not outrageous, but nor is it ethical. There will never be a "good time" to pass the resolution, and the longer it takes, the less information circulates through the American public, and the less likely it is to happen at all.
Concerns of Authoritarianism in Macedonia, EU Membership, and Dadrian's Comparative Aspects of Genocide
A New York Times article from October 2011, Concerns Grow About Authoritarianism in
Macedonia, explores recent developments in the country’s ongoing search for
identity and stability since its independence from the former Yugoslavia in
1991. In the article, published the same week the European commission released
its report concerning the country’s progress toward EU membership, journalist Matthew
Brunwasser calls attention to a rise in Macedonian nationalism through reconstruction
of historical pride and increased modernization through growing businesses:
statues of Alexander the Great and shopping centers popping up throughout
nation.
The author addresses domestic and
international unease about growing authoritarianism in the region describing
the increasing power of a patriotic, right-winged political party, the Internal
Macedonian Revolutionary Organization. He highlights a decline in press
freedoms, an increase in political influence and intimidation in media, as well
as increase pressure from political parties on governmental judges. Brunwasser
also reports growing inter-ethnic tensions in the last five years leading to an
increased alienation of the Albanian minority.
In a report from August 2011 the International
Crisis Group (“working to prevent conflict worldwide”) summarizes concerns
Brunwasser is reportning on: “worrying trends—rising ethnic Macedonian
nationalism, state capture by the prime minister and his party, decline in
media and judicial independence, increased segregation in schools and slow
decentralization—risk undermining the multi-ethnic civil state Macedonia can
become.”
To me, the domestic and
international criticisms of conditions in Macedonia mentioned in this article relate
strongly to the comparative sociohistorical genocidal threads that we discussed
today from the Dadrian article. In these recent reports of the state can see a national
search for identity, a growth in national pride, memories of past greatness, a
push to modernize, an increase in central government’s grip on democratic
freedoms, political party abuse, and a historically vulnerable minority. The
concerns noted in this article made by groups such as the International Crisis
Group and the European Commission highlight the presence of larger
international organizations that exist to recognize patterns telling of
instability/fragility today. With the creation of the European Union, Europe is
obviously more of a politically and economically interconnected and codependent
place than it was in the context of the two world wars that we have been
discussing so far. These international changes become noticeable when simultaneously
considering criticism of current conditions in Macedonia and the fragile
conditions we are historically examining in 1914 Turkey and Nazi Germany. This
article can help to highlight the continuing question of extent of intervention
of outside groups, and the role of economic/political interconnectedness in
possibly preventing potential escalation, oppressive authoritarian regimes, or
tragedy.
NYT Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/world/europe/concerns-grow-about-authoritarianism-in-macedonia.html?pagewanted=1&ref=macedonia
International Crisis Group: http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/europe/balkans/macedonia/212%20Macedonia%20---%20Ten%20Years%20after%20the%20Conflict.pdf
Acquittal after revisiting Franco's Spain
Yesterday, Baltasar Garzon, a Spanish judge and well-known human rights activist who previously issued a warrant resulting in the 1998 arrest of Chilean president and alleged human rights violator Augusto Pinochet in London, was acquitted in a 6-1 vote regarding a breach of power. He was accused of violating a 1977 amnesty law by investigating crimes against humanity in his home country that had taken place during the Spanish Civil War and the following fascist dictatorship of Francisco Franco between 1936 and 1975.
While gaining support as "a champion of human rights" from the left, two right-wing groups called Clean Hands and Liberty and Identity accuse Garzon of reopening wounds, which the groups claim that Spaniards, regardless of political beliefs, "had totally recovered from". The main critique of the right is that the 1977 amnesty law was created "to allow Spain to forget the alleged crimes of that era and move on", which Garzon had done the opposite of in 2008 by deciding to begin his investigation, which included the excavation of mass graves. In response to the rights allegations, Garzon says "crimes against humanity should not be subject to an amnesty" and treated separately. However, in an unrelated case still damaging Garzon, he received a suspension of 11 years after being convicted of illegal phonetapping and is currently facing bribery charges.
The civil war saw "the disappearance of tens of thousands of people" while Franco's government continued these atrocities during his reign, which included the oppression of all cultures he did not feel were Spanish. One of the more radical examples of Franco's attempts to create an absolutely united Spain was the prohibition of all languages other than Spanish, which, had it been continued, could have resulted in the complete loss of the Basque language. He also was responsible for many laws aimed at wiping out the cultures of minorities in Spain.
The support from the right reminds me of the absolute denial of the Turkish government regarding the atrocities of Anatolia. As Ronald Suny states, the "Turkish parliament responded witha joint declaration signed by all parties denouncing the French bill" recognizing the genocide as a genocide "as motivated by domestically political concerns and predicting that it would harm...prospects for normalization of relations between" Turkey and Armenia. While Garzon's situation doesn't face the same international problems, the refusal by those politically allied with the regime that had committed the atrocities to revisit or reexamine them is similar. Those being blamed accuse the allegations against them as being politically motivated, but their claims of denial can also be seen in the same light. Although the right claims that Spain has recovered from Franco's dictatorship, Garzon's acquittal saw rejoicing from the victims' relatives, showing that the country has not yet truly recovered.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17176638
While gaining support as "a champion of human rights" from the left, two right-wing groups called Clean Hands and Liberty and Identity accuse Garzon of reopening wounds, which the groups claim that Spaniards, regardless of political beliefs, "had totally recovered from". The main critique of the right is that the 1977 amnesty law was created "to allow Spain to forget the alleged crimes of that era and move on", which Garzon had done the opposite of in 2008 by deciding to begin his investigation, which included the excavation of mass graves. In response to the rights allegations, Garzon says "crimes against humanity should not be subject to an amnesty" and treated separately. However, in an unrelated case still damaging Garzon, he received a suspension of 11 years after being convicted of illegal phonetapping and is currently facing bribery charges.
The civil war saw "the disappearance of tens of thousands of people" while Franco's government continued these atrocities during his reign, which included the oppression of all cultures he did not feel were Spanish. One of the more radical examples of Franco's attempts to create an absolutely united Spain was the prohibition of all languages other than Spanish, which, had it been continued, could have resulted in the complete loss of the Basque language. He also was responsible for many laws aimed at wiping out the cultures of minorities in Spain.
The support from the right reminds me of the absolute denial of the Turkish government regarding the atrocities of Anatolia. As Ronald Suny states, the "Turkish parliament responded witha joint declaration signed by all parties denouncing the French bill" recognizing the genocide as a genocide "as motivated by domestically political concerns and predicting that it would harm...prospects for normalization of relations between" Turkey and Armenia. While Garzon's situation doesn't face the same international problems, the refusal by those politically allied with the regime that had committed the atrocities to revisit or reexamine them is similar. Those being blamed accuse the allegations against them as being politically motivated, but their claims of denial can also be seen in the same light. Although the right claims that Spain has recovered from Franco's dictatorship, Garzon's acquittal saw rejoicing from the victims' relatives, showing that the country has not yet truly recovered.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17176638
Censoring Genocide Denial?
The atrocity of the Armenian genocide continues to impact the world today because of the ongoing struggle of the Armenians to have the genocide recognized globally. Turkey denies the incident and avoids apologizing for it. Ongoing debates concerning the recognition of this genocide by powers such as the US are extensive with strong arguments from both sides. The crucial point of controversy is Turkey's role as an ally and the negative consequences such a recognition might have.
One nation that boldly recognized the event and ignored possible fears of alienating Turkey is France. France has gone beyond simply recognizing the genocide and has attempted to curtail denial of the event. Recently, its legislature passed a bill criminalizing the denial of the Armenian genocide. The bill imposes a fine and a one year prison sentence on anyone denying officially recognized genocides. France already has criminalized denial of the Holocaust. This bill has expanded the crime to include all official genocides, which to France are the Holocaust and Armenian killings.
Although Turkey's denial of the Armenian genocide may be unfounded, does such reasoning allow those who deny it to be persecuted? As opponents to this bill in France have pointed out, this is clearly a violation of freedom of speech. It is essentially arresting people who speak in opposition to the government's policies. This is a form of censorship and an attempt to eliminate an unsightly or bothersome opinion. Such a precedent is dangerous because it implies that that state, France, has the ability to regulate speech and the discussion of ideas. Although France may be trying to right a situation they perceive as wrong, they are violating basic rights of speech to accomplish this.
Most historians outside of Turkey will rightfully attribute the Armenian genocide to Turkey; however, those who deny it should be immune from persecution. Typically, speech is permissible even when it dissents from the majority or the government, even if the speech may be incorrect. One may expound that the Earth is flat, but avoid imprisonment from the state even if such a statement is false. France is truly being ironic in this legislation. It is attempting to protect the historical rights of the Armenians, but infringes the rights of others at the same time.
Read about the legislation briefly here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/world/europe/french-senate-passes-genocide-bill-angering-turks.html
One nation that boldly recognized the event and ignored possible fears of alienating Turkey is France. France has gone beyond simply recognizing the genocide and has attempted to curtail denial of the event. Recently, its legislature passed a bill criminalizing the denial of the Armenian genocide. The bill imposes a fine and a one year prison sentence on anyone denying officially recognized genocides. France already has criminalized denial of the Holocaust. This bill has expanded the crime to include all official genocides, which to France are the Holocaust and Armenian killings.
Although Turkey's denial of the Armenian genocide may be unfounded, does such reasoning allow those who deny it to be persecuted? As opponents to this bill in France have pointed out, this is clearly a violation of freedom of speech. It is essentially arresting people who speak in opposition to the government's policies. This is a form of censorship and an attempt to eliminate an unsightly or bothersome opinion. Such a precedent is dangerous because it implies that that state, France, has the ability to regulate speech and the discussion of ideas. Although France may be trying to right a situation they perceive as wrong, they are violating basic rights of speech to accomplish this.
Most historians outside of Turkey will rightfully attribute the Armenian genocide to Turkey; however, those who deny it should be immune from persecution. Typically, speech is permissible even when it dissents from the majority or the government, even if the speech may be incorrect. One may expound that the Earth is flat, but avoid imprisonment from the state even if such a statement is false. France is truly being ironic in this legislation. It is attempting to protect the historical rights of the Armenians, but infringes the rights of others at the same time.
Read about the legislation briefly here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/world/europe/french-senate-passes-genocide-bill-angering-turks.html
The NYPD makes me nervous
Human Rights Watch released this report yesterday (http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/02/27/new-york-investigate-police-surveillance-muslims) entitled "New York: Investigate Police Surveillance of Muslims". The report documents how in 2007 the New York City Police Department infiltrated and spied on mosques, Muslim student groups, and businesses owned or visited by Muslims, without any warrant or probable cause. Furthermore, after the NYPD created databases documenting where the Muslim citizens of New York lived, ate, prayed, and shopped, they found no evidence of any criminal or suspicion activity. However, the New York State Attorney General won't investigate this blatant abuse of power by the NYPD due to unexplained "legal and investigative obstacles."
Why should this make us very nervous? To start, this report should remind us that minority communities in America continue to be targeted by our government. But in the context of this class, the fact that officers dressed in plainclothes were targeting minority communities of New York based solely on their religion, should raise come serious alarm. The United States government has a history of perpetrating genocide and ethnic cleansing against American citizens based on their race, ethnicity, or religion. It also has a history of enacting violence against Muslim communities all over the world. Detaining entire minority populations, such as the Japanese internment camps, has also been a tool the US government has used. When viewed in the context of the US' genocidal past, NYPD illegally spying on and tracking a minority community should make us very, very nervous.
Furthermore, we should worry about the context in which this breach of privacy and civil liberties took place, especially if we've learned anything from Winter or Bartov. The US is becoming increasingly more worried about the "situations" in the Middle East, West Asia, and North Africa. Not only are our various "wars" (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Terror) backfiring in horrific ways, but our nuclear-chicken game with Iran becoming increasingly awkward and heated. The US is also extremely worried about a possible "Shia uprising" between a defiant Iran, a revolting Syria and an unstable Bahrain. Though I don't think "Total War" will erupt, the US will go to any lengths to secure its global hegemonic primacy in the international community, and that means not only completely dominating the global oil market but controlling the various Middle Eastern and African leaders who keep oil flowing. Under these pretenses, and coupled with the already fear-mongering propaganda the US government has spread about Muslim people, I fear that the US has created a lot of excuses for itself to justify illegal and violent action toward American Muslim communities.
Finally, the complete lack of accountability or even acknowledgement of wrongdoing by Bloomberg and the New York Attorney General should remind us that if the US government decides you are on the wrong side you will not be allowed access to the democratic systems that others of us in the US enjoy. Essentially, when our government decides to enact violence of any kind in the name of "war" or "national security", those who are targeted are pushed outside of democracy and are not allowed access to justice.
Why should this make us very nervous? To start, this report should remind us that minority communities in America continue to be targeted by our government. But in the context of this class, the fact that officers dressed in plainclothes were targeting minority communities of New York based solely on their religion, should raise come serious alarm. The United States government has a history of perpetrating genocide and ethnic cleansing against American citizens based on their race, ethnicity, or religion. It also has a history of enacting violence against Muslim communities all over the world. Detaining entire minority populations, such as the Japanese internment camps, has also been a tool the US government has used. When viewed in the context of the US' genocidal past, NYPD illegally spying on and tracking a minority community should make us very, very nervous.
Furthermore, we should worry about the context in which this breach of privacy and civil liberties took place, especially if we've learned anything from Winter or Bartov. The US is becoming increasingly more worried about the "situations" in the Middle East, West Asia, and North Africa. Not only are our various "wars" (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Terror) backfiring in horrific ways, but our nuclear-chicken game with Iran becoming increasingly awkward and heated. The US is also extremely worried about a possible "Shia uprising" between a defiant Iran, a revolting Syria and an unstable Bahrain. Though I don't think "Total War" will erupt, the US will go to any lengths to secure its global hegemonic primacy in the international community, and that means not only completely dominating the global oil market but controlling the various Middle Eastern and African leaders who keep oil flowing. Under these pretenses, and coupled with the already fear-mongering propaganda the US government has spread about Muslim people, I fear that the US has created a lot of excuses for itself to justify illegal and violent action toward American Muslim communities.
Finally, the complete lack of accountability or even acknowledgement of wrongdoing by Bloomberg and the New York Attorney General should remind us that if the US government decides you are on the wrong side you will not be allowed access to the democratic systems that others of us in the US enjoy. Essentially, when our government decides to enact violence of any kind in the name of "war" or "national security", those who are targeted are pushed outside of democracy and are not allowed access to justice.
Monday, February 27, 2012
When to Use "Genocide"
David Scheffer, a law professor at Northwestern and the U.S. ambassador at large for war crimes issues between 1997 and 2001, recently wrote an op-ed in the New York Times about the use of the term "genocide." He argued that it should be left to historians and jurists to declare what was and wasn't genocide, as politics make things too messy. What he wants, instead, is for governments to use the terms "atrocity crimes" until the label has been decided one way or the other.
Scheffer brings up the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, Darfur, Rwanda, the Balkans and Syria to emphasize his point, referring to 'genocide' as defined by the 1948 Genocide Convention. He points out the fact that in some cases, so much time was spent deliberating about whether the events constituted a genocide or not, that foreign aid didn't come quickly enough. If these governments labeled them as 'atrocity crimes,' went and helped, and then decided what it was in the aftermath, we wouldn't be running into these problems.
However, I disagreed with his argument about using the term loosely. He implied that calling the Armenian atrocity crimes a genocide was slapping the label around, and that to do such a thing would be "tragically ineffective or self-defeating." His argument that it would intimidate powerful nations from helping quickly to stop atrocities I found to be ineffective. I believe that the nature of calling something a genocide would instigate people to help, because the term connotes such horrors and monstrosities. I also believe that genocide is absolutely involved in the world of politics, as is evidenced in the fact that it was the government itself that committed these atrocious acts in several examples (the Young Turks against the Armenians, the Nazis against the Jews, Gypsies, etc). Scheffer's decision to leave it to historians and jurists strikes me as counter intuitive, considering the fact that historians might not come back to this event for a while. The deliberations of the government are relevant and important for the recognition of such crimes. It makes the events seem irrelevant if the government, seen as such a big and important factor for so many people, neglect to have anything to do with the issues at hand. As we saw in the documentaries, it's up to the governments to recognize the Armenian genocide and acknowledge that this occurred. Otherwise, these people have no sense of validation. The dehumanization process doesn't end.
I don't deny the fact that getting "unified international responses to ongoing massacres" is important. I just think that Scheffer's solution isn't necessarily the right one, and that his idea of leaving politics out of an inherently political event is a little counterintuitive.
Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/opinion/defuse-the-lexicon-of-slaughter.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=prejudice&st=cse
Scheffer brings up the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, Darfur, Rwanda, the Balkans and Syria to emphasize his point, referring to 'genocide' as defined by the 1948 Genocide Convention. He points out the fact that in some cases, so much time was spent deliberating about whether the events constituted a genocide or not, that foreign aid didn't come quickly enough. If these governments labeled them as 'atrocity crimes,' went and helped, and then decided what it was in the aftermath, we wouldn't be running into these problems.
However, I disagreed with his argument about using the term loosely. He implied that calling the Armenian atrocity crimes a genocide was slapping the label around, and that to do such a thing would be "tragically ineffective or self-defeating." His argument that it would intimidate powerful nations from helping quickly to stop atrocities I found to be ineffective. I believe that the nature of calling something a genocide would instigate people to help, because the term connotes such horrors and monstrosities. I also believe that genocide is absolutely involved in the world of politics, as is evidenced in the fact that it was the government itself that committed these atrocious acts in several examples (the Young Turks against the Armenians, the Nazis against the Jews, Gypsies, etc). Scheffer's decision to leave it to historians and jurists strikes me as counter intuitive, considering the fact that historians might not come back to this event for a while. The deliberations of the government are relevant and important for the recognition of such crimes. It makes the events seem irrelevant if the government, seen as such a big and important factor for so many people, neglect to have anything to do with the issues at hand. As we saw in the documentaries, it's up to the governments to recognize the Armenian genocide and acknowledge that this occurred. Otherwise, these people have no sense of validation. The dehumanization process doesn't end.
I don't deny the fact that getting "unified international responses to ongoing massacres" is important. I just think that Scheffer's solution isn't necessarily the right one, and that his idea of leaving politics out of an inherently political event is a little counterintuitive.
Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/opinion/defuse-the-lexicon-of-slaughter.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=prejudice&st=cse
feeling turkish
The Betrayed offered a disconcerting glimpse of what Turkish national representatives and regular citizens alike know/believe/understand about the Armenian genocide. Has the state succeeded in historical erasure? How guilty/complicit are those who knew it was taking place but did nothing? How does this socio-cultural policy of denial make Turkey and Turkish people appear to rest of the world?
The Black Power Mixtape: 1967-1975 self-identifies not as the complete history of the black power movement, but of how the movement was observed and understood by two Swedish filmmakers.
By demonstrating the extent to which our country has intentionally crippled African Americans, The Black Power Mixtape is helpful in dispelling the narrator's (and as a result most viewers') naivete and assumptions of righteous innocence.
J. Edgar Hoover spearheaded the FBI's campaign of political genocide against the panther party and other radicals under auspices of COINTELPRO. In addition to murdering and locking up many of that generation's most prominent thinkers and leaders, the FBI also targeted non-violent social programs whose only subversive agenda was for black people in america to be healthy and survive. For example, The Black Panther Party's free breakfast program (for children mostly), was admitted to be considered the greatest threat to national security.
I think the Feds perceived the panthers as the vanguards of a broader, somewhat marxian struggle. As a result, they assassinated particularly threatening individuals, and threw figurative small-pox blankets to the wider, low-income, black populous. First with heroin, then crack, our government divided and conquered some of its most vulnerable communities by establishing violent, underground economies. This is in the context of American deindustrialization, within which working/middle class Black people were being laid off across the country. Times have changed, but the federal government's treatment of African Americans in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries resemble its treatment of indigenous Americans in earlier centuries. Think of projects as reservations/food-aid (controlling lifeways & forcing dependency); Cultural/spiritual violence vis a vis alcohol&disease/heroin&crack; death by murder.
Even with the 'proof' of government documents, many people perceive my words as bottom-shelf conspiracy theory. In this sense, I associate Americans and Turkish people: both countries have recent (or contemporary) histories of severe ethnic cleansing -- in each, those who acknowledge and study their state's behavior are marginal and relatively few. If you were weirded out by Turkish people's ignorance of the Armenian genocide and are unfamiliar with America's war(s) on people of color, I very seriously recommend The Black Power Mixtape.
The Black Power Mixtape: 1967-1975 self-identifies not as the complete history of the black power movement, but of how the movement was observed and understood by two Swedish filmmakers.
By demonstrating the extent to which our country has intentionally crippled African Americans, The Black Power Mixtape is helpful in dispelling the narrator's (and as a result most viewers') naivete and assumptions of righteous innocence.
J. Edgar Hoover spearheaded the FBI's campaign of political genocide against the panther party and other radicals under auspices of COINTELPRO. In addition to murdering and locking up many of that generation's most prominent thinkers and leaders, the FBI also targeted non-violent social programs whose only subversive agenda was for black people in america to be healthy and survive. For example, The Black Panther Party's free breakfast program (for children mostly), was admitted to be considered the greatest threat to national security.
I think the Feds perceived the panthers as the vanguards of a broader, somewhat marxian struggle. As a result, they assassinated particularly threatening individuals, and threw figurative small-pox blankets to the wider, low-income, black populous. First with heroin, then crack, our government divided and conquered some of its most vulnerable communities by establishing violent, underground economies. This is in the context of American deindustrialization, within which working/middle class Black people were being laid off across the country. Times have changed, but the federal government's treatment of African Americans in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries resemble its treatment of indigenous Americans in earlier centuries. Think of projects as reservations/food-aid (controlling lifeways & forcing dependency); Cultural/spiritual violence vis a vis alcohol&disease/heroin&crack; death by murder.
Even with the 'proof' of government documents, many people perceive my words as bottom-shelf conspiracy theory. In this sense, I associate Americans and Turkish people: both countries have recent (or contemporary) histories of severe ethnic cleansing -- in each, those who acknowledge and study their state's behavior are marginal and relatively few. If you were weirded out by Turkish people's ignorance of the Armenian genocide and are unfamiliar with America's war(s) on people of color, I very seriously recommend The Black Power Mixtape.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)