Tweet
The Roanoke Times (Virginia)
December 11, 2008 Thursday
Metro Edition
GENOCIDE AND ORIGINAL SIN
EDITORIAL; John Long; Pg. B9
This week marks the 60th anniversary of a landmark piece of
international legislation: the United Nations Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. I wish I could say
the document had been as successful in preventing mass killings as the
authors intended it to be.
The preamble of the treaty describes genocide as an "odious scourge
. . . condemned by the civilized world." No argument on my end so
far. The convention further defines genocide as "acts committed with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial
or religious group." The killing of large numbers of individuals for
their indelible identity (race, religion, etc.) obviously qualifies,
as would such practices as forced sterilization or abortion designed
to eliminate a specific group. But left out of this definition are
other justifications for mass governmental murder, such as political
differences or economic distinctions.
I was thinking about the subject not long ago after attending a
lecture at Roanoke College on the subject of 20th century
genocides. Eric Weitz of the University of Minnesota was the speaker,
and he attempted to answer the question "Why was the 20th century the
century of genocides?" Indeed the last century was the most bloody on
record. Six million Jews (and millions of others) killed by Hitler's
Holocaust; 800,000 deaths more recently in Rwanda; 2 million in 1970s
Cambodia; a million and a half forgotten Armenians in Turkey during
World War I. It's a depressing litany of numbers that could go on for
pages.
Professor R.J. Rummel of Hawaii was perhaps more descriptive when he
coined the term "democide." He defined it simply as the killing of
humans by government. And by his count, government was one of the most
prolific killers of the last century. Let Rummel's estimate sink in
for a bit: 262 million 20th century people killed by governments,
usually their own.
Dr. Weitz's explanations for 20th century genocide ranged from the
modern conception of race to the rise of nationalism and imperialism
in the 19th century to the advances in biological science that helped
some justify the "inferiority" of another group. Weitz also pointed
out that genocide is not carried out solely by a few fanatics: Large
numbers of non-killers have to be complicit in such geno- (or demo-)
cide.
His remark reminded me of a quote by C.S. Lewis that the greatest evil
"is not done in concentration camps and labor camps. In those we see
its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded,
carried and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted
offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and
smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice."
Overall, I thought Weitz did an admirable job of covering his topic in
a short address, but I left thinking there were other answers to the
question of the day. For instance, he did not touch on industrial
technology, which has made it so much more practical, affordable and
hygienic to massacre thousands of people.
But more frighteningly, it seems that one common denominator in every
one of the 262 million murders was overlooked: They were all
perpetrated by people. Humans, unmoored from any traditional sense of
right and wrong, killing other humans with soulless efficiency.
Perhaps the fatal flaw is not in expansive government, as Rummel
speculates, or in inequitable prejudices toward other groups, as Weitz
opined, or in the cold efficiency of modern bureaucrats, as Lewis'
quote suggests. Perhaps the flaw is in ourselves. Once upon a less
politically correct time it was called original sin. And if that's the
case there's not much hope of human institutions, inevitably afflicted
by the same flaw, fixing the problem.
Here we again see the wisdom of our Founding Fathers -- though they
never heard the term genocide, they instinctively knew that power
should be divided, not concentrated in one potentially abusive
institution. Absolute power corrupts -- and too often kills --
absolutely.
The U.N. Genocide Convention has been able to punish some genocidal
criminals, but has not been -- perhaps cannot be -- a preventative
measure. For that, I can only look toward the little baby whose birth
we'll celebrate later this month.
Long, a Roanoke Times columnist, is director of the Salem Museum and
teaches history at Roanoke College.
December 11, 2008 Thursday
Metro Edition
GENOCIDE AND ORIGINAL SIN
EDITORIAL; John Long; Pg. B9
This week marks the 60th anniversary of a landmark piece of
international legislation: the United Nations Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. I wish I could say
the document had been as successful in preventing mass killings as the
authors intended it to be.
The preamble of the treaty describes genocide as an "odious scourge
. . . condemned by the civilized world." No argument on my end so
far. The convention further defines genocide as "acts committed with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial
or religious group." The killing of large numbers of individuals for
their indelible identity (race, religion, etc.) obviously qualifies,
as would such practices as forced sterilization or abortion designed
to eliminate a specific group. But left out of this definition are
other justifications for mass governmental murder, such as political
differences or economic distinctions.
I was thinking about the subject not long ago after attending a
lecture at Roanoke College on the subject of 20th century
genocides. Eric Weitz of the University of Minnesota was the speaker,
and he attempted to answer the question "Why was the 20th century the
century of genocides?" Indeed the last century was the most bloody on
record. Six million Jews (and millions of others) killed by Hitler's
Holocaust; 800,000 deaths more recently in Rwanda; 2 million in 1970s
Cambodia; a million and a half forgotten Armenians in Turkey during
World War I. It's a depressing litany of numbers that could go on for
pages.
Professor R.J. Rummel of Hawaii was perhaps more descriptive when he
coined the term "democide." He defined it simply as the killing of
humans by government. And by his count, government was one of the most
prolific killers of the last century. Let Rummel's estimate sink in
for a bit: 262 million 20th century people killed by governments,
usually their own.
Dr. Weitz's explanations for 20th century genocide ranged from the
modern conception of race to the rise of nationalism and imperialism
in the 19th century to the advances in biological science that helped
some justify the "inferiority" of another group. Weitz also pointed
out that genocide is not carried out solely by a few fanatics: Large
numbers of non-killers have to be complicit in such geno- (or demo-)
cide.
His remark reminded me of a quote by C.S. Lewis that the greatest evil
"is not done in concentration camps and labor camps. In those we see
its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded,
carried and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted
offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and
smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice."
Overall, I thought Weitz did an admirable job of covering his topic in
a short address, but I left thinking there were other answers to the
question of the day. For instance, he did not touch on industrial
technology, which has made it so much more practical, affordable and
hygienic to massacre thousands of people.
But more frighteningly, it seems that one common denominator in every
one of the 262 million murders was overlooked: They were all
perpetrated by people. Humans, unmoored from any traditional sense of
right and wrong, killing other humans with soulless efficiency.
Perhaps the fatal flaw is not in expansive government, as Rummel
speculates, or in inequitable prejudices toward other groups, as Weitz
opined, or in the cold efficiency of modern bureaucrats, as Lewis'
quote suggests. Perhaps the flaw is in ourselves. Once upon a less
politically correct time it was called original sin. And if that's the
case there's not much hope of human institutions, inevitably afflicted
by the same flaw, fixing the problem.
Here we again see the wisdom of our Founding Fathers -- though they
never heard the term genocide, they instinctively knew that power
should be divided, not concentrated in one potentially abusive
institution. Absolute power corrupts -- and too often kills --
absolutely.
The U.N. Genocide Convention has been able to punish some genocidal
criminals, but has not been -- perhaps cannot be -- a preventative
measure. For that, I can only look toward the little baby whose birth
we'll celebrate later this month.
Long, a Roanoke Times columnist, is director of the Salem Museum and
teaches history at Roanoke College.