Talk:Genocide/recent

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

From Talk:Genocide article, Please see Talk:Genocide/Old for previous discussion. Fredbauder 14:34 Oct 18, 2002 (UTC)

This article contained a number of inaccuracies which I have corrected:

the legal definition of genocide is not specific to the ICC. It has been around since 1948, long before the ICC, and is incorporated in the national legislation of many countries
the Rome Statute has nothing to do with universal jurisdiction and does not mention it anywhere AFAIK (whoever wrote that probably doesn't understand what universal jurisdiction is)
people may say genocide not involving killing is "not generally accepted usage", but if you look at the legal definition, the legal definition does not require anyone to be killed for an act of genocide to take place - added this qualification

-- SJK

IMHO two notion should be included in an article about genocide pogrom and crime agains humanity.

Some events listed here are technically either mass murder or a war crime in whole or part.

Above statement deleted by someone.

Not really deleted read further :

events commonly called genocide despite the fact they are technically either mass murder or a war crime in whole or part :

I believe the distinction beteween real genocide and events commonly called genocide is re-inforced. Bur still no reference to pogroms.

Ericd 18:32 Sep 10, 2002 (UTC)

We need to clarify the popular vs. legal definitions of genocide, or we'll keep getting peremptory changes like this. I suggest we stop pushing the international law thing, and give popular usage its due: "large numbers of civilians killed by a government in peacetime" or something similar. --Ed Poor

TRhat just isn't the definition Ed as you yourself quoted above "Merriam-Webster has "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group".

Genocide is the attempt to destroy a group because they are members of a group not just killing lots of people. --rmhermen That's not enough it's a pogrom genocide aims total extermination think to Final solution.

I think the present two introductory paragraphs accurately explain the original definition, and the fact that some people use it in a broader and narrower sense than the original defintion. I think we have to give priority to the international law meaning, because it is the original meaning -- it is what the person who originally invented the word meant by it. If popular usage is different, in most cases that is simply because they don't know what the word means. Just because most people fail to understand what a word means, doesn't mean its meaning suddenly changes to fit their misunderstanding--since "genocide" is a technical term in law and the social sciences, it means what experts in those fields use it to mean, not what the average person thinks it means. We shouldn't change the definition of words to fit popular misconceptions of what they mean. -- SJK

This is ridiculous. Of course the definition needs to be on this page. --rmhermen

Okay, I un-split it. But I made MANY OTHERS changes as well, particularly to the definition and to text relating to (i.e., quibbling with) the definition. --Ed Poor

Roughly 800,000 Christian Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed by Muslim Hutus. See Rwanda/History.

Who write such disinformation ? Hutus and Tutsis are Christians. Even Hutus catholic priests were invoveld in the genocide ! Ericd 04:30 Sep 14, 2002 (UTC)

Extermination of ethnic groups by the Soviet communist government Why is it bigger font !!!!!!! not NPOV !!!! Ericd 04:35 Sep 14, 2002 (UTC)

Who removed reference to the Japanase massacres ????? I don't like what happens here !!!!!

Well said Ericd, why atrocities committed by Soviet or the PRC were in bigger front? Also who deleted reference to the Japanese massacres? So does those notations and editings mean that geneocides committed by Chinese government needed to be exagerrated and those suffered by Chinese (people) deserved to be ignored? What kind of NPOV is this? Actually it's not that hard to trace the page history to check who did all that, Eddy. By the way, I really doubted the accuracy of the number of people killed during Mao's regime. I know it's a large number but not as large as quoted. I personally revert those changes.

Ktsquare Sep 14 2002

As I understand much of the preceding discussion, there has been some debate as to whether the article should address the legal or popular use of the term "genocide." The last revision seemed to attempt to accomodate both sides. I too agree that both usages should be recognized and explained -- I just thought the last version was especially poorly-written. I hope readers find my change to the first paragraph both to accomodate the different points raised over the past few days, and to be somewhat more elegantly written.

I also deleted the two dictionary definitions. Frankly, they just seemed odd -- as if someone had inserted them in the article just in order to prove a point. The only point I could see was the use of the term "mass murder," I hope that my new introduction renders the inclusion of dictionary definitions unnecessary.

Besides, I really think including a dictionary definition in an encyclopedia is inapporpriate and bizarre; I certainly do not know of any other authoritative encyclopedia does it. I don't mean to be a slave to concetnion; I think they do not do it for a good reason. Encyclopedias and dictionaries are both tools, but tools for different jobs. In someone wants a dictionary definition, they go to a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. A good dictionary will provide a list of definitions in order of the degree of use. An encyclopedia should summarize current research on a topic -- two entirely different things. Perhaps it is true that "most people" use the term "genocide one way -- but to me, that is precisely why such a usage should be underplayed in an encyclopedia article. If "most people" use a term a certain way, then obviously "most people" already "know" that. People generally turn to encyclopedias to learn what they do not know, or to learn what is not popular knowledge. By the way, I think this article, ofr the most part, does a good job of providing that! Slrubenstein

My thought is that including the precise legal definition of genocide is excellent, however this is not a legal textbook, nor will anyone go free because the wrong charge is made. Contributors have repeatedly presented examples of events which they consider genocide, such as the events in Cambodia. In a sense they have voted with their fingers and made a definition. Neither should the examples which in whole or part are technically in the wrong category be deleted nor should a whole lot of space be spent explaining exactly why each incident is not "genocide". The difference between popular usage and legal jargon needs to be briefly set forth with links to the alternate possibilities, relatively early in the article. Fred Bauder

The first paragraph does exactly what you claim it should do -- I cut the second paragraph because it is poorly written and adds nothing -- except (as you point out) a couple of useful links which I incorporated into the first paragraph, where they belong. By the way, I believe it is unhelpful to characeterize one definition as "technically wrong" and the other as "jargon." There are various ways that different people use the word genocide. This is an encyclopedia article and a good article will explain the history of the word and its uses. The point is, to privilege the legal definition is not to say that people who use the word differently are "wrong. There are two reasons to privilege the legal definition (I hope you understand that privileging one usage does not preclude discussion of other usages). First, this is an encyclopedia and its task is to educate people about things they do not know. Second, the legal definition came first; the word entered popular useage because of the legal definition. One cannot understand the popular usage unless one first understands the legal history. Slrubenstein

The following sentence mixes up "broadly" and "narrowly":

Since that time, the term has been adapted by both the international legal community to refer broadly to state-sponsored violence against a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, and by the general public, to refer more narrowly to acts of mass-murder against such groups (see also war crimes or other crimes against humanity).

I think the popular usage (i.e., gov't sponsored mass murder) is broader than the usage of international law -- which excludes political targets.

--Ed Poor 14:36 Sep 16, 2002 (UTC)

Ed, the sentence uses "narrowly" and "broadly" correctly. First, when I wrote the sentence I included the terms "national, ethnic, racial, or religious group," in deffererence to you, who I believe had formerly included two dictionary definitions that described the "popular" meaning of genocide, both of which listed these groups. More importantly, those dictrionary definitions - and frankly, my own experience -- has led me to think that most people think "genocide" describes murder. But the legal definition is much broader and includes acts that do not involve murder or killing and which I think many people did not know are nonetheless considered genocide by international law. By the way, I do not know what you mean by "political" targets -- certainly the Nazi genocide against Jews was a political act. Do you mean killing people because of their political beliefs? I do not know of anyone who would call the US Civil War (in which two sides slaughtered one another because of their political beliefs) to be genocide. Slrubenstein

I was unaware that the US Civil War involved people slaughtering one another because of their political beliefs. Would you please write about that idea for the American Civil War article? I was referring to state-sponsored murder of civilians, as in China, Ukraine and Cambodia. The communist rulers of these countries sought to end political opposition to their dictatorships by killing millions of people. A lot of people call such killings "genocide", whether or not it fits the UN definition. We should either mention those killings somewhere -- either in genocide, where a lot of people will look, or in a better-named article. Can you think of a better name? --Ed Poor

Ed, I removed your phrase "even (or especially) when politically motivated," because it's inclusion implies that other forms of genocide are not politically motivated. Every example I can think of of genocide (according to Lemkin/UN definition was politically motivated, at least arguably.

I simply am not sure what you are trying to add. My sense is that whatever you are trying to add (that is of value) requires more elaboration -- rather than using an ambiguous phrase such as "poilitically motivated" what is needed is a more detailed study of different ways people have used the word genocide, and different forms of genocide -- all of which belongs in the body of the article and I encourage you to work on that section.

The opening definition is I think a good clear definition; it certainly in no way suggests that politics is uninvolved or irrelewvant, and does not in any way preclude the inclusion of a more elaborate and concrete discussion. For example, I agree with you that the China/Cambodia examples do not fit the UN definition as such. But the current opening of the article provides a link to "mass murder" which I think communicates precisely what you are saying. I am not arguing with you over how to define genocide; I am saying that the opening introduction accomodates your views. Would it help to add the words "and other groups?" I just think that the phrase "mass murder" already does that (I mean, what do people think the word "mass" means in this context?). I reread the intro and I really think it accomodates your view -- to add anything more to the introductory paragraph would at best be redundant and at worst raise too many questions about nuance that are better left for the body of the article.

By the way, as far as I understand people fought the civil war over the question of slavery and to a lesser degree states' rights -- two political issues if I ever saw one! Slrubenstein

I guess I'm reacting to the wording of the UN definition, which seems designed to exclude the most massive cases of mass murder from "genocide". If Mao has 20 to 60 million Chinese civilians murdered because they refuse to support a government policy, what should we call that? Not "genocide", according to the UN definition. Not "democide", because that's a neologism that few people are familiar with. Must we say that the Cambodian genocide wasn't "genocide"? If it's not genocide, what is it?

In which article should we describe cases where a government murdered 1,000,000 or more of its citizens? In mass murder? In [genocide]]? In democide? --Ed Poor

Well, if you are asking me what I think personally, I will just repeat my answer above: I think it should be in this article. I think there should be a section that contrasts different cases of genocide (e.g. American Indians in the 19th century, Jews in the mid 20th century, Cambodians in the lat 20th century), discuss different cuases (e.g., were the "killing fields" in Cambodia more a result of political conflict among Cambodians, or the need for the Cambodian government to drastically increase rice production within a very short time in order to acquire the capital needed to industrialize); and discuss different reasons people may call one example "genoicde" or not. I think all of this should be in the curent article.

I also think the current opening definition would serve to introduce such a discussion, Slrubenstein

I think its rather poor, more muddy and legalistic than elegant, but here's a question: Does genocide require intent, in the legal sense?

Also we seem to be loosing some facts due to editing. I note the rape of Nanking seems to have been deleted, also the massacre of the Jewish settlers in Hebron in 1933, all instances of some sort of genocidal wrong, which brings up another question: How should the article treat anachronistic instances, for example Columbus, nominally the head of state, is said to have committed genocide, but probably lacked both control over his Spanish subjects and intent (he only intended to enslave the natives) and also was more or less conducting himself as any European would have in those times (although there are subtle differences from country to country in this area). Fred Bauder

Fred, I do not think it is up to us to decide what is a case of Genocide or not. I think it is the task of an encyclopedia article to report on what others do. Certainly many Native Americans consider Columbus to be one among many instigators of genocie -- if you think the article should include a discussion of "genocide" that is not limited to the legal definition, certainly the article should discuss these claims. Even if you believe we should limit the article to the legal usage, I think we must discuss such claims. I imagine there has been a lot written on Columbus and genocide; since I have not done research on this I leave it to others to develop this aspect of the article. But even though I have not done research on this, I know that it is a valid topic -- I mean, Ward Churchill's essay "Bringing the Law Home" is certainly enought to justify research and discussion in this article, don't you think?

According to the law, a person need not be an official of the state to be held responsible for genocide. Moreover, "killing" people is only one of five possible forms of genocide and I am sure a mediocre lawyer could successfully argue that enslavement falls under one of the other four. Slrubenstein

I deleted someone's claim that there was "no evidence" for Soviet genocide in Ukraine. --Ed Poor

-- Eco

There is NO evidence of the Ukrainian "famines" outside of Robert Conquest's sick little mind (well, along with Solzhenitsyn and the rest of that ilk). Let me suggest a little reading for you:

http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/sov-hol.html

The article is not from the site (which is pro-USSR). I would give you the original page for the article but it no longer exists.

I'm changing it back and I suggest you leave it that way until you can prove otherwise. I suggest you come prepared though. I've been studying Soviet history for close to 6 years...

If in all that time you've managed to avoid any evidence of Stalin's complicity in the Ukrainian famines, I wonder what your motivation for study is? I don't mean this as an ad hominem remark, but generally anyone who studies a country is interested in both its good and bad points. --Ed Poor

From the article:

The validity of claims made against the Soviet Union in the case of the Ukrainian famine(s), and other alleged Soviet holocausts are still being debated.

--Ed Poor

-- Eco

Oh, and by the way, Eddy, I didn't say there was NO evidence so next time you want put words in my mouth, let me know before if possible so I can get a SCREENSHOT of what I said. Let me take a break here for a second and say I was only offering something I didn't see presented -- AN OBJECTIVE PERSPECTIVE. I could understand if I was calling the slaughter of 6 million Jews by the Nazis a "holohoax" but there is physical, credible empirical and photographic evidence, etc. that it was not. In fact, my grandfather was in the 2nd wave that liberated Aushwitz. Beyond that, I have friends from Russia who will tell you that western historians are FULL OF IT. How do you argue with someone who LIVED during that time and is far more credible then a handfull of angry, anti-communist, Russian immigrants or Fascist liars like Conquest or Solzhenitzyn? Hmm...

Sorry to be an ass, but I am sick of the historical myths people pop off with.

-- Eco

If in all that time you've managed to avoid any evidence of Stalin's complicity in the Ukrainian famines, I wonder what your motivation for study is?

No, it's the other way around, my friend! Stalin was never just sitting by while Ukrainians starved because the only time Ukrainians starved is when the rich Kulaks got angry and decided to burn crops. By the way, something else that can be taken from that page I gave you that I think you should consider:

Readers should also consider what Western sources always neglect to mention: that around 1932 there were massive crop problems not only in the USSR, but also in India and the USA, where the "Dust Bowl" crisis forced people to abandon farmlands and migrate West en masse.

I don't mean this as an ad hominem remark, but generally anyone who studies a country is interested in both its good and bad points.

I will gladly tell you about the bad points of Stalin, the Soviet economy, or the like. I WILL NOT stand by and let people make up lies of this absurd scale about any country though. Even this one and trust me, I'm not exactly in love with the government here if you get my drift. My whole intention when I study something from a historical perspective is to find what exactly is the truth. I will be honest too, I went into Soviet history after having read Harvest of Sorrow, the Great Terror, and the Gulag Archipelago. I was also reading all the Trotsky I could get my hands on. I went into Soviet history as biased as they come and now I'm here.

I see too many historians trying to get their next idea for a book from their own mind. It's not hard to make up a news story, and it's only a bit more of a challenge to make up something like this. Hey, David Icke can do it about aliens! Albeit, not as well as some historians can do it about our stereotypical national enemy, but he's got some followers!

-- Eco

I'm happy the way it is if you are. I am more than willing to carry on this debate though.

Big question -- the article says "and by the general public, to refer to state-sponsored mass murder (see also war crimes or other crimes against humanity)." What members of the general public? In my entire life, I have never heard genocide used in this way (to refer to government killings in general) until I came across Wikipedia. If it is a sense used by the general public, it must be used only by some of them (in which case it isn't really used by the general public, since the general public is everybody or the vast majority of people)... I had always heard "genocide" used to refer to killings based on racial or ethnic criteria. --- SJK

Hmmm, SJK has an interesting point.

Something else I'd like to bring up. First off, I will be honest. My knowledge of Soviet history is what some friends consider to be "beyond extensive" (not bragging, just clarifying), but my knowledge in terms of "red" China is entirely lacking.

One thing that seems odd about the deaths caused by economic disasters in China is just that -- they were economic disasters! How exactly does incompetent leadership mean genocide? I think SJK will see my point here too...

--Eco

Something else I thought of. Shouldn't the enslavement of millions of Africans by the US be considered in the genocide section? This is, of course, considering that a good portion either died being captured, on arrival, or on the plantation. It was simply state sponsored as opposed to state engineered genocide. Discuss.

--Eco

I think slavery is bad, because it makes so many people suffer. This encyclopedia really should have a lot more information on slavery. Millions of Africans were kidnapped and made slaves. I'd like to know how many of them became slaves of other black Africans vs. how many were sold abroad to Arabs, Europeans and Americans. (Someone told me once that 75% of African slaves were bought by Arabs, but I haven't been able to track down any proof or disproof of this. Any historians know about this?)

Currently, there are 100s of thousands of black slaves in the Sudan, maybe over a million. Is our motivation (a) to show that America is bad, or (b) to reveal the suffering that slaves have endured? If A, then let's focus on the plight of slaves on the boats headed toward America and on the Southern plantations. If B, let's also write about slaves imported to Islamic or Arab countries, including contemporary Sudan.

I'm not a historian, but I like reading history. --Ed Poor

Currently, there are 100s of thousands of black slaves in the Sudan, maybe over a million. Is our motivation (a) to show that America is bad, or (b) to reveal the suffering that slaves have endured? If A, then let's focus on the plight of slaves on the boats headed toward America and on the Southern plantations. If B, let's also write about slaves imported to Islamic or Arab countries, including contemporary Sudan.

If you want to write an article about slavery in Sudan for Wikipedia, by all means, do! Just be fair. I'm well aware slavery exists in all parts of the globe and my intention was not just to slander the US. To be honest, it sounds more like you're trying to find an excuse to slander Islamic countries BUT I'm not making any accusations. If you're not, ok, I'm sorry. There is currently quite a backlash of anti-Muslim/anti-Islam sentiment that I have personally witnessed on the streets. Thus, I'm more than willing to admit I'm a little paranoid of people who would write a thousand pages of exaggerated data on slavery in Islamic countries and ignore or downplay previous ones in contrast. See, the problem is this. The slavery you're speaking of isn't JUST in Islamic countries. It's in Hindu countries, Christian countries, etc. It also comes in so many different forms, albeit with varrying degrees of suffering, that it is hard to say what is and what is not slavery.

Now, my angle is that we have this case of slaves being shipped to America and it does, in some ways, fit the traditional definition of genocide (it was obviously race oriented, just for starters). It is also well documented as being the biggest, the most brutal and ruthless slave trade of it's time. In my opinion, we need to make sure the extent of such an atrocity is known better than it is now. We have racists and their ilk trying to propagate lies like "they should be thankful they were enslaved" or "black people were enslaving themselves too." The latter may have some truth to it but it has been completely blown out of proportion by racist "conservatives" who distort history to their own liking (a la David Horowitz, who I am glad to say has been throughly refuted). Another one is the swelling of lies about how since Africa has been generally decolonized, it has become worse then it was! Those of us in the field of social sciences have figured out it is a lasting effect of badly organized and executed decolonization and not due to the skin tone of the people being colonized as some assert, or that colonial rule was better. This is a different topic though and I'm getting off track entirely...

So in short, no. It's to slander the US. My question was simply should we consider the slave trade to America as genocide? Most (third world) modern slavery is not racially specific about who they enslave. It's generally class/caste specific or just whoever gets on the bad side of whoever else is in charge. Thus, it's not really genocide any way you look at it.

By the way, I would still like someone's opinion on China.

--Eco

Eco, it sounds like you have a lot of strong feelings about injustice; so do I. I'm more of an editor than a researcher, so I hope you will channel your strong feelings into MANY LONG and DETAILED articles!
Some of the terms used to classify atrocities are slippery, so I'd be happy to help you get a grasp on them: racism, genocide, crime against humanity and so on have complex definitions. Words like killed and prisoner are more readily defined.
The challenge of an encyclopedia often lies in classifying things appropriately.

Let's work together. --Ed Poor

We need more documentation on Soviet and Chinese genocide. Did they or did they not murder tens of millions of their own people?

Also, we need to come to terms on the definition of genocide. Should it focus on "race" & "ethnicity" as in the international agreements? Or should it apply also to state-sponsored mass murders of political and social groups (as in the Soviet Union and Red China)?

Note: if we choose to go with the UN definition, then we will have to find a good place for the "non-genocidal" state-sponsored mass murders. It does no good to the reader to have a "some people say this isn't genocide" disclaimer on every third paragraph in the article.

I do not like the new introduction. I think the previous one was much clearer, more accurate and informative, and accommodated both the International Law definition as well as alternative uses of the term. But I will not revert until/unless there is some more discussion.

The previous introduction in my opinion muted the issue of "non-genocidal state-sponsored mass-murder" by metnioning it as an alternative view. Also, I do not understand Ed Poor's concern since there is a term for, and article that deals with, "non-genocidal state-sponsored mass-murder" -- specifically, mass murder (which is much more narrow a concept than genocide, which need not involve murder at all); indeed, the previous intro had a link to this article. So I do not see what the problem is. Slrubenstein

Absent discussion over the past couple of days, I have reverted to the previous definition. here is what I Cut:

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group, typically by governments murdering huge numbers of civilians in areas under their control (see Holocaust, mass murder, democide, crime against humanity, war crimes).

The reason I cut this is that it is WAY TOO NARROW -- genocide need not be systematic, nor need it involve murder. The reverted introduction is clearer and signals the different uses of the term. It still has a link to "mass murder" to address incidents that may not ligally be considered genocide, or that overlap with genocide. Slrubenstein