Tweet
GENOCIDE DENIAL BANS: WHAT WOULD RAPHAEL LEMKIN DO?
FRANCE 24
http://worldbuzz.blogs.france24.com/article/2012/02/03/genocide-denial-bans-what-would-raphael-lemkin-do-0
Feb 3 2012
The French Senate's recent decision to criminalize denial of the 1915
Armenian Genocide prompted backlash from the Turkish government and
charges of hypocrisy. While Turkey officially denies the systematic
destruction of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire, in Turkey, a common
response to the French ban on Armenian genocide deniers is that French
occupation of Algeria constituted genocide.
Many find it strange to equate the two. The Armenian genocide appears
to be the prototype of violent attempts to destroy entire groups of
people. France certainly didn't attempt to kill all of the Algerians.
How could they compare? To answer this question, it serves us to
investigate the origins of the term.
In his 1944 "Axis Rules in Occupied Europe," Raphael Lemkin, the
man who coined the term "genocide," described the concept as "a
coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of
essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of
annihilating the groups themselves." Genocide had two phases: "One,
the destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the
other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor." This
destruction of groups could be equally waged through economic policy,
the law, or violence.
Thus for Lemkin, the Nazi occupation of Europe, Stalin's attempts
to destroy the Ukrainian people through religious persecution and
famine, the Belgian colonization of Congo, and the Ottoman massacres
of Armenians were all genocide. They were not genocide because of the
killing that occurred, but because they were all purposeful attempts
to destroy the way of life of the oppressed.
On the Algerian genocide, Lemkin wrote that a nation-wide campaign of
violence and torture targeted Algerian national consciousness while
colonial land and resource policy brought decimating poverty and
disease upon the Algerian population. He believed these coordinated
policies were purposeful attempts by the French colonial government
to destroy Algerian culture. This was no different from the Ottoman
Empire's genocide of the Armenians, Lemkin believed.
Under the UN's current definition, it would be hard to define the
French rule in Algeria as genocide. But if we go back to the roots of
the concept and pay attention to Lemkin's ideas, those in Turkey who
charge the French with hypocrisy make a valid point. Let us be fair,
we all live in states built on bones. In the US, we hide our genocide
in plain sight, calling it manifest destiny. Kill the Indian and save
the man, from sea to shining sea.
What would Lemkin do if he heard this debate about criminalizing the
denial of genocide? He would probably point to the genocides both
governments are currently facilitating either tacitly or directly,
from Libya and Iraq to Congo. Instead of fretting over criminalizing
the denial of past genocides, our governments should be criminalizing
the support of current genocides. For one, the US, France, and Turkey
could ban domestic sales of global conflict materials. The eastern
parts of the Democratic Republic of Congo are some of the wealthiest
places on earth, and the genocide makes a lot of money for a lot
of people. Besides the loss of life and physical trauma, there is
also a tremendous amount of cultural destruction in as well. Lemkin
would remind us that this is just as dangerous to the welfare of our
collective humanity.
We like pointing to other people's genocides without considering our
own role in facilitating and denying the suffering of others. We do
not like thinking about how much our cell phones would cost if we
had to pay a fair price for the blood minerals used to make them. It
is actually less than we think: people are dying for a few cents per
cell phone.
Solidarity requires too much sacrifice. So, we're quarreling over
defining past atrocities.
Submitted by Douglas S. Irvin
The opinions expressed are those of the author, and do not represent
the opinions of Rutgers University or the Division of Global Affairs.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
FRANCE 24
http://worldbuzz.blogs.france24.com/article/2012/02/03/genocide-denial-bans-what-would-raphael-lemkin-do-0
Feb 3 2012
The French Senate's recent decision to criminalize denial of the 1915
Armenian Genocide prompted backlash from the Turkish government and
charges of hypocrisy. While Turkey officially denies the systematic
destruction of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire, in Turkey, a common
response to the French ban on Armenian genocide deniers is that French
occupation of Algeria constituted genocide.
Many find it strange to equate the two. The Armenian genocide appears
to be the prototype of violent attempts to destroy entire groups of
people. France certainly didn't attempt to kill all of the Algerians.
How could they compare? To answer this question, it serves us to
investigate the origins of the term.
In his 1944 "Axis Rules in Occupied Europe," Raphael Lemkin, the
man who coined the term "genocide," described the concept as "a
coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of
essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of
annihilating the groups themselves." Genocide had two phases: "One,
the destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the
other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor." This
destruction of groups could be equally waged through economic policy,
the law, or violence.
Thus for Lemkin, the Nazi occupation of Europe, Stalin's attempts
to destroy the Ukrainian people through religious persecution and
famine, the Belgian colonization of Congo, and the Ottoman massacres
of Armenians were all genocide. They were not genocide because of the
killing that occurred, but because they were all purposeful attempts
to destroy the way of life of the oppressed.
On the Algerian genocide, Lemkin wrote that a nation-wide campaign of
violence and torture targeted Algerian national consciousness while
colonial land and resource policy brought decimating poverty and
disease upon the Algerian population. He believed these coordinated
policies were purposeful attempts by the French colonial government
to destroy Algerian culture. This was no different from the Ottoman
Empire's genocide of the Armenians, Lemkin believed.
Under the UN's current definition, it would be hard to define the
French rule in Algeria as genocide. But if we go back to the roots of
the concept and pay attention to Lemkin's ideas, those in Turkey who
charge the French with hypocrisy make a valid point. Let us be fair,
we all live in states built on bones. In the US, we hide our genocide
in plain sight, calling it manifest destiny. Kill the Indian and save
the man, from sea to shining sea.
What would Lemkin do if he heard this debate about criminalizing the
denial of genocide? He would probably point to the genocides both
governments are currently facilitating either tacitly or directly,
from Libya and Iraq to Congo. Instead of fretting over criminalizing
the denial of past genocides, our governments should be criminalizing
the support of current genocides. For one, the US, France, and Turkey
could ban domestic sales of global conflict materials. The eastern
parts of the Democratic Republic of Congo are some of the wealthiest
places on earth, and the genocide makes a lot of money for a lot
of people. Besides the loss of life and physical trauma, there is
also a tremendous amount of cultural destruction in as well. Lemkin
would remind us that this is just as dangerous to the welfare of our
collective humanity.
We like pointing to other people's genocides without considering our
own role in facilitating and denying the suffering of others. We do
not like thinking about how much our cell phones would cost if we
had to pay a fair price for the blood minerals used to make them. It
is actually less than we think: people are dying for a few cents per
cell phone.
Solidarity requires too much sacrifice. So, we're quarreling over
defining past atrocities.
Submitted by Douglas S. Irvin
The opinions expressed are those of the author, and do not represent
the opinions of Rutgers University or the Division of Global Affairs.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress