Talk:Genocide

One of the most common misuses of term genocide in the media is ignorance or amnesia with respect to the "intent" part of the definition. The naive understanding is that, if a genocidal doesn't annihilate a group, that it somehow was "not genocide". For example, someone might believe, "Because there are Native Americans alive today, the United States did not eliminate all the Native American population, therefore the U.S.A. cannot be guilty of genocide against the Native Americans." This logic is incorrect, as the definition shows; the burden of proving genocide is to prove the intent to destroy… which is quite different than total destruction. I move that we should specifically include the word "intent" in the lede, as its a key part of the definition and is probably the most commonly misunderstood aspect of genocide among non-scholars. Objections / dissent? - Jm3 / 13:55, November 17, 2015‎ (UTC)

this is now done. - Jm3 / 01:58, November 26, 2015‎ (UTC)

I present these five points:

1. Blocking and preventing access to essential goods, namely water, food, and medicine.

2. Blocking electrical and gas supplies.

3. Destruction of hospitals.

4. Blocking escape routes, turning Gaza into an open-air prison.

5. Killing a large number of civilians under the pretext of Hamas, not justified even by the high population density.

Today, we see these five points exacerbated, but that doesn't mean they didn't occur, albeit to a lesser extent, before October 7th. Israel imposes a real hardship on the Palestinian people. .

.

--MiaiiwoowLodha (msg) 13:57, 16 nov 2023 (CET)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the definition of genocide to: "intentional and systematic acts aimed at destroying, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, including killing its members, causing serious harm, and creating conditions intended to bring about its physical destruction". Carlo Ce (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The actual definition "the intentional destruction of a people in whole or in part" is too vague. Carlo Ce (talk) 04:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The opening sentence is only a broad overview of the topic and summarises both Lemkin's view and the legal definition. Personally I don't see any problem with that opening sentence, as long as it is expanded later.Pincrete (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would like to see "systematic" added to the definition. The rest is secondary. Carlo Ce (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is being 'systematic' inherent in the various definitions? While many genocides have been systematic, others, such as some against indigenous groups have been intermittent and fairly randomly carried out over extended periods. The 'intentional' part is central to most definitions, I'm not sure that 'systematic' is. Apart from any other objection, the addition would be clunky phrasing. Pincrete (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Clearly not an uncontroversial edit to be made via the edit request template before developing a consensus. PianoDan (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/20/magazine/genocide-definition.html has a quotation that might be useful as a way of introducing the multiplicity of definitions:

The word "genocide," the international-affairs scholar Zachariah Mampilly says, is not meant to be precise. "It's meant to serve a political, moral purpose, not to be a technical legal term".

The article seems like a decent 10–15-minute-long summary of the history of definitions, with some focus on the Israel–Hamas mess. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here are some thoughts for overhauling the article:

1. Origins of the concept—including etymology, historical context, Lemkin's role
2. Genocide Convention and legal definition / legal cases (including alternative legal definition) —possible sub article Genocide (crime)
3. Genocide studies—including alternative non-legal definitions, criticism of the concept of genocide
4. Causes of genocide (eg. colonialism and genocide, war and genocide), perpetrator studies, genocide prevention
5. Effects of genocide
6. Genocide in history—focusing on trends rather than individual events (prehistoric origins, European colonialism, "century of genocide")
7. Genocide recognition politics and genocide denial/justification

(t · c) buidhe 03:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I applaud the (much-needed) pruning and tidying of this (somewhat bloated) article.Pincrete (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Buidhe, thanks for the great work!

Right now, history section is missing Part 2 Empire-Building And State Domination in The Cambridge World History of Genocide Vol. 2. For example, chapter 5: Atrocity and Genocide in Japan’s Invasion of Korea wouldn't be covered by European colonialism. I think we should add a sentence or two about that.

We are also missing history after WW2. I guess this would be covered by Part 3 The Nation-State System During The Cold War in The Cambridge World History of Genocide Vol. 3 Bogazicili (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

While I understand the thinking behind not 'privileging' the legal definition, removing 'intentional' would allow for genuinely accidental or war-resulting destructions being genocide. AFAI can see, all definition include some variant of 'intentional/deliberate' etc, whether the link to genocidal intent is strictly necessary/informative is a matter that I have mixed feelings about. I've restored for now. Pincrete (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure it's true that "no definition allows for accidental destruction or total wipe-out in conflict"; in the case of colonial genocides, many are considered such despite difficulty in finding an "intent to destroy"[1] The issue of intent is more vexing when the genocide is not perpetrated by a single centralized power. Which perpetrators of the Sayfo can be said to have an "intent", "plan", or "aim" to destroy the Assyrian people, even in part?

Ultimately I am collecting different definitions, and will come back here with a list that can be examined for commonalities that can be used to build a better first sentence of the article. (t · c) buidhe 15:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also worth checking this paper:^[1] most genocide scholars accept cultural genocide and indirect/structural genocide, at least if the correct intent is present. (t · c) buidhe 16:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

[2] I don't think this edit is accurate. Except for the Genocide Convention, this kind of wording is not found—and some specify that genocide can be committed against any group of individuals, as defined by the perpetrator (see above). The first sentence should strive for commonality between different definitions, and "people" or "population" are both vague enough to capture the variety of specifications for the targeted group according to various definitions of genocide. (t · c) buidhe 05:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

and some specify that genocide can be committed against any group of individuals, as defined by the perpetrator. What then is the defining characteristic? It seems at least vague, and somewhat self-contradictory to say " and aims at the destruction of a people" and then say, it could be 'any group of individuals', without saying anything about the character or size of the group. I'm aware that there are many who think that social classes or political groups should be included as potential 'targets', there may be other groups, but it remains the case that race/nationality/religion are the most common traits attacked and the most obvious understanding of 'a people'. 'A people' is a very broad term, but it cannot be understood as meaning 'any group of individuals'. What concerned me was that the opening sentence had become so all-embracing that it had failed to identify the topic. Pincrete (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Most of the academic definitions don't specify exactly what kind of group needs to be attacked. Just looking at the ones quoted above we have "a group, as that group and membership in it are defined by the perpetrator", "civilian social groups", and "a group (as defined by the perpetrator)".

Lemkin said "national groups," but he meant it much more broadly than it would be expected by the typical reader: "Lemkin, quite literally, believed that people who shared similar tastes in art, people who were part of the same labor union, people who gambled, all constituted national groups." (t · c) buidhe 14:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bogazicili Thanks for your edits but I think they are redundant. The entire idea of settler colonialism was invented in large part to signify that European colonialism did not end with the establishment of self governing states overseas. So all of the genocides in the Americas would be considered a product of European colonialism (although perhaps it could be Western colonialism to avoid confusion on this point). (t · c) buidhe 17:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

No I don't think they are redundant. It's important to recognize that it has continued after the establishment of independent states, such as California genocide. "Western colonialism" sounds confusing. Is California genocide "Western colonialism"? Bogazicili (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Colonial states" is also used in other sources. The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, p. 349:

Colonial genocide has even become a widely used distinct category. However, it is important to note that genocidal violence in most of colonial Africa differs in some considerable ways from genocides committed in North American and Australian settler colonies: European colonization of Africa did not inevitably lead to the expulsion and/or annihilation of the indigenous populations. There are two reasons for this difference: whereas colonization preceded the formation of bureaucratic colonial states in America and Australia, European settlement followed the establishment of colonial administration in Africa. As a result, the colonial states in the British New World territories were almost unlimitedly dominated by settlers’ interests. In Africa, by contrast, the settlers’ influence and ability to fight and expel the Africans on their own was more restricted because the colonial states were still weak and their power relied on the cooperation with indigenous chiefs.

Bogazicili (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Obviously not all situations are the same, but it's still redundant the way you worded it. Especially since Adhikari is discussing both of them in the paragraph you edited. (t · c) buidhe 17:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, I don't see it as redundant. Maybe it is for you since you have a lot of prior knowledge. But this is an encyclopedia article. It should be written for a general audience.

You can't assume that readers will know "The entire idea of settler colonialism was invented in large part to signify that European colonialism did not end with the establishment of self governing states overseas". Why do you not explain that in the article? The article is only 2k words. I also used a different source than Adhikari. It is better to use multiple sources. Bogazicili (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict)

I was about to post here myself, I also think the addition redundant, and possibly confusing. Any state which came about as a result of European colonialism, whether it was still wholly governed by by the 'mother country' or wholly self-governing (or an intermediate state such as some British 'colonies/dominions'), would be covered by the term 'European colonialism'. They may not all be identical in other respects, but they are all the result of such colonialism.

Why would a reader understand/know that, for example, countries in the American continent were 'colonial states', but not know that they were the product of 'European colonialism'?Pincrete (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is California genocide European colonialism? Also, the source makes a distinction and clarification. Why do you want to omit that? The Cambridge World History of Genocide. Vol. 2, p. 38:

With these works, a near consensus emerged. By most scholarly definitions and consistent with the UN Convention, these scholars all asserted that genocide against at least some Indigenous peoples had occurred in North America following colonisation, perpetuated first by colonial empires and then by independent nation-states

Bogazicili (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is the lead which is necessarily a summary, but it doesn't make the distinction you claim, it simply says that genocide ocurred "following colonisation", both before and after the places became independent states. Our text said "It is particularly associated with European colonialism", how is that untrue or incomplete?

California is not a state at all, in the sense of being an independent nation, colonial or otherwise. California was though colonised by people of European extraction. Are you now claiming that the reader would recognise California as being a 'colonial state'. Pincrete (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

What would you suggest for the lead? I think just saying European colonization is insufficient.

You assume the reader would know "Any state which came about as a result of European colonialism, whether it was still wholly governed by by the 'mother country' or wholly self-governing (or an intermediate state such as some British 'colonies/dominions'), would be covered by the term 'European colonialism'".

Maybe we can say Western colonialism in the lead or European colonization and newly established states, or something like that. But the sentence I added into the body should stay. Bogazicili (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The sentence you added to the body is not particularly helpful to readers, imo. Since it is settlers on the ground who are the driving force behind anti indigenous genocide to begin with, there is no obvious reason why it should stop when the settlers give fealty to a slightly less distant authority. If the reader wrongly believes that the government is the leading perpetrator, that is the most important misconception to correct. (t · c) buidhe 21:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Maybe we can say Western colonialism in the lead or European colonization and newly established states, or something like that I personally don't have a problem with 'Western colonialism', but 'newly established states' fundamentally changes the meaning (which is that these states were, or evolved from European colonies and were largely run by 'settlers'). That they were 'new' is incidental. Pincrete (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

. That is incorrect. State or national governments or government officials were also responsible

• The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, p. 338:

  In 1851, Governor Burnett gave official voice to the genocidal intent of settler violence against the California Indians, stating: ‘[T]he white man, to whom time is money, and who labors hard all day to create the comforts of life, cannot sit up all night to watch his property . . . after being robbed a few times he becomes desperate, and resolves upon a war of extermination.’ According to Burnett, ‘A war of extermination will continue to be waged between the races until the Indian race becomes extinct.’72

• The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, p. 339:

  The genocidal intent of California settlers and government officials was acted out in numerous battles and massacres (and aided by technological advances in weaponry, especially after the Civil War), in the abduction and sexual abuse of Indian women, and in the economic exploitation of Indian child labourers

• The Cambridge World History of Genocide. Vol. 2, p. 47:

  Within twenty years of settlement, the Aboriginal population of Victoria had declined by 80 per cent. Most of Australia’s 750 Aboriginal languages lost their last speakers. In the 1930s, after a century of child stealing and family disruption, the official policy of 'breeding out the colour’ was implemented. It was genocide, exactly as Lemkin was then trying to make it understood. It was not only about killings, but also about words and actions that signified an intention to destroy a human group.2

Saying In places like North America, genocide of indigenous peoples continued after the establishment of independent states also doesn't suggest "government is the leading perpetrator". That seems to be your personal interpretation. Bogazicili (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I never said that government officials weren't involved , merely that in my opinion your edits start from the premise that, for example, Canada becoming officially independent from the United Kingdom is necessarily going to make a significant difference in terms of what is happening on the ground in Manitoba. It is not correct to put so much emphasis on this in the article unless it is the driving force behind genocides. (t · c) buidhe 00:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I also have to admit that I'm not sure about the sentence "According to Mark Levene, seeing native people as "savages" and racism "played a critical role in psychocultural justifications for genocide" in areas such as Australia and North America". This was also the justification for genocide in many other cases, even non-colonial ones. I'll look for a more general source and then put it in a different section. (t · c) buidhe 05:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Buidhe, are you trying to remove any mention of Australia and North America in the History section?

As for your earlier reply, I see the issue. You thought my premise was about drivers because of where I placed the sentence. No, I was just trying to clarify the timeline. As I said, "European colonialism" sounds too vague. We need to clarify what is meant by that term. The source makes it clear.

The Cambridge World History of Genocide. Vol. 2. Introduction Chapter, p. 10:

This volume offers, besides other imperial expansionist cases such as those from early modern China and Japan, empirical evidence for Barta’s observation across five centuries of European settler colonial history. In Part I, ‘Settler Colonialism’, three chapters collectively survey the colonial histories of the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Southern Africa from the sixteenth to the early twentieth centuries. These chapters bring the many differences between these colonies to light, but it is what connects them that determines their histories as genocidal: the goal of imposing a new settler society on Indigenous lands. Further, these chapters articulate how genocide has shaped the nationalist historiographies of settler colonies.

I'll reword the sentence and move it to the beginning of the paragraph, so it's clear it's clarifying what is meant by "European colonialism" Bogazicili (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article is about genocide in general so the sources we cite should also be about genocide in general, rather than specific cases of genocide. The added material to the history section makes me concerned about due weight when the colonialism material is now making up more than half of the history section. I do not agree with giving North America / Australia undue prominence—this isn't even all of the Anglo-American settler colonialism as the source you just quoted makes clear—and if it's possible to cover them in combination with other cases of genocide, that structure seems more suitable for an overview article. (t · c) buidhe 17:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Buidhe, you gave Amalek as an example for the ancient period. North America and Australia should be used as examples for what is meant by colonial genocides. North America and Australia are mentioned so many times even only in the Introduction Chapter in the above source.

The reason for UNDUE weight is your long-winded economic explanation. Economic explanation should be moved to Causes section. Bogazicili (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

European colonialism would include ALL of America (N & S), as well as much of Africa and Asia. I don't understand why N. America and Australia would be singled out. I also don't think 'colonial state' is either clear or obvious. Would 'former colonies' not be clearer, if it is felt necessary to distinguish them from 'true' colonies? Pincrete (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I clarified with this sentence: The destruction of indigenous societies as part of European colonialism, including in colonial states such as United States and Australia, was initially not recognized as a form of genocide. based on above source. Otherwise, it's too vague. I'm ok with moving the entire paragraph starting with "According to Mohamed Adhikari, the two" to Causes section. Bogazicili (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Isn't the new lead photo (a Nazi firing squad shooting Polish 'hostages' as reprisal for other Poles attacking a German policeman) an example of a "violent and coercive form of rule that aim to change behavior rather than destroy groups", which we say is excluded, rather than genocide itself. I acknowledge that Nazi policy 'in the East' was consciously and systematically genocidal, but is this photo an example of that? Pincrete (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The previous picture was, as acknowledged by the caption, not typical of genocides because it is more common historically for men to be killed than the women and children in the picture. The new picture was chosen to illustrate the security rationale elaborated in the causes section that is behind most or all genocides. I do think that it qualifies because it is an execution of hostages for actions committed by other Poles, which is the same logic explained in the causes section. If we accept that the Nazi policy in occupied Poland and the Soviet Union was genocidal, a large part of the deaths inflicted by the occupier were in the course of German anti-partisan operations in World War II and the main victims were civilians not armed partisans (as in the picture).

At the same time, I am open to suggestion other images that may be considered typical of genocides in general. (t · c) buidhe 07:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

"relatively uncommon" in comparison to what? The source is not clear on it. (t · c) buidhe 00:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The source references "Van Wees, ‘Archaic and classical Greece’, 19". I don't have that source.

Van Wees say in The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, p. 244: "The massacre of all inhabitants of a city was quite rare, though not unknown. More common was the killing of all men, or all men of military age, while the women and children were led away to be sold as slaves. This is described as standard procedure for dealing with a city captured by force in a range of texts from Deuteronomy and the Iliad to Livy’s history of Rome" Bogazicili (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I wasn't sure whether it meant "relatively uncommon" in relation to events in the era when genocide might have occurred, or in comparison to more recent times. (t · c) buidhe 18:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply