Now it is a crime in France to deny the armenian genocide, and a Turkish writer.....

[BeBMan]

It's already settled, and btw, you still put it out of context. And if you weren't so qick it digging out "definitions" from dictionaries you'd maybe ask yourself why this point was included in the UN convention (which, as I have shown all cool countries - including the US - have signed).

But of course ranting 'bout it is much easier

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sava
so BeBro, LotM...

"Mental harm" is genocide in your opinions?

I just want to be clear on this.

You know... to get a feel for who is really on the wrong side of reality here.

Ive never heard it used in reference to purely mental harm, not in popular usage, and not in references to the Genocide Convention. I think the convention included that reference to acknowledge that its PART of genocide. For example, during the Shoah, millions of Jews were killed, and hundreds of thousands who were not killed were harmed. Some had physical injuries, others had "only" massive suffering, humiliation, being turned into virtually, mindless automatons, etc. This was to recognize that ALL were victims of the Nazi genocide. It did not envision say, referring to the Danish Cartoon Crisis as a genocide.

Would the imprisonment or exile of an entire people constitute genocide? I think the strong consensus is that it does not - again both in popular usage and in int legal usage.

[Sava]

Originally posted by BeBro
you still put it out of context

I quoted the selection from the wiki article in the context they had it... I didn't take it out of context at all.

The Convention (in article 2) defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:"

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Mental harm is part of this definition that the convention created. And you can sit there and claim that I'm "ranting" about this all you want. It doesn't change anything. The word "genocide" has a clear meaning. This convention changed and distorted that meaning to include other aspects of ethnic violence that are not consistent with the meaning of the word "genocide" in order to prosecute people who commit such atrocities as criminals who commit "genocide" when in fact, they are not committing genocide at all. They are attempting to commit genocide.

You seem to be ignoring this, or just unable to comprehend this fact. Why? That's another discussion altogether and one not appropriate for this thread.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sava


I quoted the selection from the wiki article in the context they had it... I didn't take it out of context at all.



Mental harm is part of this definition that the convention created. And you can sit there and claim that I'm "ranting" about this all you want. It doesn't change anything. The word "genocide" has a clear meaning. This convention changed and distorted that meaning to include other aspects of ethnic violence that are not consistent with the meaning of the word "genocide" in order to prosecute people who commit such atrocities as criminals who commit "genocide" when in fact, they are not committing genocide at all. They are attempting to commit genocide.

You seem to be ignoring this, or just unable to comprehend this fact. Why? That's another discussion altogether and one not appropriate for this thread.

Ok, sava, you tell me, how would causing mental harm tend to lead to the destruction of a group. Surely most persecution wouldnt do it, cause in that case destruction could be easily avoided by flight. Certainly there have been many cases of religious and linguistic persecution, yet AFAIK none of them, when occuring in isolation, has ever been prosecuted as genocide.

Could it be that there were Nazis who engaged in torture, enslavement, and destruction of human dignity as PART of the holocaust, but who didnt actually kill anyone personally, and that this clause was included for the benefit of prosecuting them?

"It is a crime to plan or incite genocide,{b] even before killing starts[/b], and to aid or abet genocide: Criminal acts include conspiracy, direct and public incitement, attempts to commit genocide, and complicity in genocide.

Punishable Acts The following are genocidal acts when committed as part of a policy to destroy a group’s existence:

Killing members of the group includes direct killing and actions causing death.

Causing serious bodily or mental harm includes inflicting trauma on members of the group through widespread torture, rape, sexual violence, forced or coerced use of drugs, and mutilation."

[BeBMan]

The word "genocide" has a clear meaning. This convention changed and distorted that meaning to include other aspects of ethnic violence that are not consistent with the meaning of the word "genocide" in order to prosecute people who commit such atrocities as criminals who commit "genocide" when in fact, they are not committing genocide at all.

The convention did not distort existing concepts of "genocide" it was actually the first time "genocide" was defined for internat. law. The article describes that as well. I could rather say those dictionary "defs" you provided distort the original def. It's really no wonder since they are rather short descriptions then real defs, but that is exactly the reason why you should not exclusively point to them.

[Sandman]

Genocide is a pointless term. I dislike the way that it tends to apply to ethnic groups, as if it makes any difference WHY they were killed. What about class, or politics, or gender, or sexuality, or totally random indiscriminate mass murder?

I also disagree with the idea that there needs to be 'intent', based on paperwork and documents. Burn these, bingo, no genocide, just an accident.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman
Genocide is a pointless term. I dislike the way that it tends to apply to ethnic groups, as if it makes any difference WHY they were killed. What about class, or politics, or gender, or sexuality, or totally random indiscriminate mass murder?

I also disagree with the idea that there needs to be 'intent', based on paperwork and documents. Burn these, bingo, no genocide, just an accident.

Politics is a choice, and, well, a political choice. It may be wrong to kill for that reason (its certainly undemocratic and illiberal) but to ban killing your political enemies would not have been politically feasible when the convention was written, nor do i think it would be today. Class of course would have been rejected by the USSR. Also peoples tend not to simply dissappear (at least not rapidly) through normal social events - classes and political groups sometimes do, and this would create massive complications. Gender - yeah, that should probably be included. I guess no one at the time thought it credible that someone would try to exterminate a gender.
Sexual orientation? Yeah, that could be included, based on the idea its not a choice either. I doubt we could get most of the world to agree though - esp the muslim world.

Its like with the Geneva conventions, that establish rules for war, but dont, you know, ban war. Its an act of political realism - getting something the world can (pretty much) agree on. You push it past that, you make the best the enemy of the good.

[lord of the mark]

and also, genocide has different consequences from generic mass murder. You destroy (more or less) an entire people, you kill off the culture, part of the heritage of mankind, you give the survivors nothing to return to. Yes, I know that can happen without genocide, but it adds a twist to genocide.


from Raphael Lemkin "Genocide - A Moderrn Crime" -1945

"WHY should genocide be recognized as an international problem? Why not treat it as an internal problem of every country, if committed in time of peace, or as a problem between belligerents, if committed in time of war?

The practices of genocide anywhere affect the vital interests of all civilized people. Its consequences can neither be isolated nor localized. Tolerating genocide is an admission of the principle that one national group has the right to attack another because of its supposed racial superiority. This principle invites an expansion of such practices beyond the borders of the offending state, and that means wars of aggression.

The disease of criminality if left unchecked is contagious. Minorities of one sort or another exist in all countries, protected by the constitutional order of the state. If persecution of any minority by any country is tolerated anywhere, the very moral and legal foundations of constitutional government may be shaken.

International trade depends on the confidence in the ability of individuals participating in the interchange of goods to fulfill their obligations. Arbitrary and wholesale confiscations of the properties and economic rights of whole groups of citizens of one state deprives them of the possibilities of discharging their obligations to citizens of other states, who thereby are penalized.

A source of international friction is created by unilateral withdrawal of citizen rights and even by expulsion of whole minority groups to other countries. The expulsion of law-abiding residents from Germany before this war has created friction with the neighboring countries to which these people were expelled. Moreover mass persecutions force mass flight. Thus the normal migration between countries assumes pathological dimensions.

Our whole cultural heritage is a product of the contributions of all peoples. We can best understand this if we realize how impoverished our culture would be if the so-called inferior peoples doomed by Germany, such as the Jews, had not been permitted to create the Bible or to give birth to an Einstein, a Spinosa; if the Poles had not had the opportunity to give to the world a Copernicus, a Chopin, a Curie, the Czechs a Huss, and a Dvorak; the Greeks a Plato and a Socrates; the Russians, a Tolstoy and a Shostakovich. "

[Barnabas]

The fact that Armenians had lived in what is now eastern turkey for more than 2500 years make it worse imo (if you consider urartians as proto armenians, then they had lived there for even far longer)

[Sava]

Originally posted by BeBro


The convention did not distort existing concepts of "genocide" it was actually the first time "genocide" was defined for internat. law. The article describes that as well. I could rather say those dictionary "defs" you provided distort the original def. It's really no wonder since they are rather short descriptions then real defs, but that is exactly the reason why you should not exclusively point to them.

Those are genocidal acts, but not genocide. There is a clear difference.

The term "genocide" is becoming meaningless because people are using it to describe other such lesser acts which are clearly not genocide. IMO, when you use a term incorrectly in this fashion, it loses its meaning.

Next thing you know, we'll be calling any kind of hate crime a "genocide".

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Sava
IMO, when you use a term incorrectly in this fashion, it loses its meaning.

Exactly, that's why I linked you to the correct def in the UN convention to help you out when you were still referring to the unfitting dictionary stuff.

[lord of the mark]

"In the Jewish parliament
The walls are burning.
People are learning Talmud,
arguing over commentaries.
Suddenly--quiet, please!
A gentile comes in
And says in gentile-ese:
Gentlemen,
That’s the kind of world this is.

The learners split into equal parties
Forbidding, permitting, and deriving.
What did the gentile mean when he said
“The kind of world it is”? They grab their heads.
Oh, dearest God, the kind of world this is!

The right says:
It may not suit the gentile
But let’s start shooting in a little while.
From the center aisle:
Yes, we agree, a little bit.
Right then the left shouts:
Let’s get out of here
And not do it shoot-‘em-up style.

Shouts the gentile: Gentlemen, please,
That’s the kind of world this is.
And all sing: Dearest God, the kind of world this is.

1933"

Jacob Glatstein, from the Yiddish

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Sava


Those are genocidal acts, but not genocide. There is a clear difference.

The term "genocide" is becoming meaningless because people are using it to describe other such lesser acts which are clearly not genocide. IMO, when you use a term incorrectly in this fashion, it loses its meaning.

Next thing you know, we'll be calling any kind of hate crime a "genocide".

Well, you run along and play with semantics and perhaps someone will start to care. Killing close to 2 million people across two seperate programs purely because of their ethnic background deserves to be labelled as genocide.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by BeBro

Exactly, that's why I linked you to the correct def in the UN convention to help you out when you were still referring to the unfitting dictionary stuff.

Since when has the UN ever done anything competantly? They **** up the English language just as they **** up most other things they touch.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Sava
The definition of the word "genocide" is a fact. You can't change that no matter how much you claim I'm arguing against reality.

No definition is fact. Ever. A definition is just a meaning attributed to a word, that people supposedly share. If I defined genocide as the act of picking flowers, it would be no more or less "fact" than your or the UN's definition. However, I'd be the only one to use that def, and people wouldn't understand me.

Generally speaking, a definition is valid when many people agree with it. This is the role of a dictionary btw: to remind people the meaning of a word that is generally shared.
In the case of international relations, a definition is more valid when the actors of IR (the states and ther institutions) agree with it. The UN definition fits that bill much better than the one liners found in regular dictionaries.