On acts of Genocide

[David Thompson]

[This thread was split off from the discussion of "Turkish Vandals Target Greek Pogrom Photo Exhibit" at
viewtopic.php?t=85438 and recaptioned by the moderator - DT]

yakamoz -- You said:

Genocides are usually linked to complete exterminations. We fail to realize that a group can be destroyed by other means as well. Take away their language and a group will be destroyed in no time. Force them to have a different identity, there will be no group left. What happened to Armenians is just one of the ways, but not the only way.

You are applying the term "destroyed" to cultural traits rather than to the physical destruction of the individuals which belong to the group. This is different from the meaning of the term "destroy" used in the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide (my emphases), where the list of prohibited acts is exclusive, not exemplary:

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, 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.

UN Convention on Genocide 1948
viewtopic.php?t=66189

[yakamoz]

David,

I would like to have made that assumption, but I didn't. You are assuming that I applied the term "destroyed" to cultural traits; not at all. It says:

"Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;"

The "it" before the expression physical destruction stands for the group whose conditions of life are threatened. You may see individuals here, but I see the group (as a physical entity) beyond these individuals. I would also like to point out that whenever it is needed in this document to talk about individuals, the term used for this purpose is "the members of the group". But this is not the case in part (c). Here the issue is not the members of the group, but the group itself. At least, this is how I read it. I understand physical destruction as destroying something in such a way that it cannot be located physically anymore, that it does not exist as a physical entity.

This is a very serious piece of document. Unless it is shown otherwise, I just cannot assume that they meant individuals when they wrote group. It is clear to me that that they make a distinction betwen these two categories by using two different terms: a group and members of a group.

timucin

[David Thompson]

This is a very serious piece of document. Unless it is shown otherwise, I just cannot assume that they meant individuals when they wrote group. It is clear to me that that they make a distinction betwen these two categories by using two different terms: a group and members of a group.

While your observation is correct as far as it goes, the term "physical destruction" applies to the group which consists of its members; not to the cultural traits of the group:

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

To me, this means the physical destruction of some or all of the members of the group, and has no application to folkways, customs or cultural traits. This was the point of my observation:

You are applying the term "destroyed" to cultural traits rather than to the physical destruction of the individuals which belong to the group.

[yakamoz]

You know I have never mentioned folkways, customs or cultural traits. While I agree that a group consists of its members, this does not mean that a group is only a collection of its members. Destroying all the members of a group will certainly destroy the group in question. But a group can also be destroyed without killing a single member of it. Let me give an example.

The Genocide convention recognizes four groups:

Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Let's assume that there is a small group of Muslims in a predominantly Christian country or a country governed by a Christian government and let's assume that there is no religious freedom in this country so that the Muslims are not allowed to practice their religion in any way, that they are under constant supervision and religious persecution. Finally let's assume that the Christian govenment is 100 percent successful. In time, the Muslim group will disappear. The members or ex-members of this group will survive, they will not be destroyed physically; but the group (in this case a religious group) will be destroyed. Eventually all these people may accept another religion. In fact there are many examples like this. No cultural traits are touched; for religion in the sense we understand is not a cultural trait.

This is what I am talking about and this is what this section (c) is about. We may think that it is not, but when we read it word by word, this is the closest meaning one should get. When you read it, you were forced to give us the additional information that what was meant by the physical destruction of a group was really the physical destruction of its members (which is mentioned in section (a) anyway). When I read the same statement I didn't have to give additional information. I simply repeated what was written.

How can members of a group can be destroyed physically if they are not being killed (which is already mentioned in section (a))? We may create conditions which will damage them physically and mentally so that the group will not be able reproduce itself. This is already mentioned in section (b). We may take away the children or prevent births. Both conditions are already described in other sections. What other means are left other than targeting the group as a separate entity? Only one option is left: Destroying the group by targeting the bonds that hold it together, that create and define the group as a physical entity. Forcing living conditions that are not suitable for the group to reproduce these bonds will destroy the group. And I am not talking about anything cultural. Cultural traits can still go on and we know from history that they do, even when people start new groups.

timucin

[David Thompson]

yakamoz -- Your original remark was:

Genocides are usually linked to complete exterminations. We fail to realize that a group can be destroyed by other means as well. Take away their language and a group will be destroyed in no time. Force them to have a different identity, there will be no group left. What happened to Armenians is just one of the ways, but not the only way.

For the reasons I have explained, I think your reading of section (c) of the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide is overbroad. I think that religion is a cultural trait, as is language and dress. The term "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction physical destruction" refers to the corporeal members of the group, in whole or in part, and not to the values which they share as a group. If the term "physical destruction" is applied to cultural traits, it leaves a person of ordinary intelligence to guess what acts the section makes criminal.

[yakamoz]

I don't mind repeating myself and explaining my point of view over and over again, but are you aware that you are not letting me have the same opportunity? You are simply telling me that I am wrong, but you don't explain me why my reading of that article is a mistake. No arguments, no explanations, no examples; I believe this is not fair to me.

Also can you tell me what definition of culture are you using so that religion becomes a cultural trait? Instutionalized religion cannot be and is not a cultural trait. If it is then a religious group is a cultural group. After all, if religion = cultural group then religious group = a group based on a cultural trait. In that case, how come such a group is in this convention, if it is not supposed to be talking about cultural traits? There are again no arguments and therefore I don't know why you are claiming that religion (I mean the institutionalized form; that is, starting almost from the neolithic forms) is a cultural trait.

Perhaps we will have to discuss the distinction between cultural and social as well.

timucin

[David Thompson]

yakamoz -- Here are some thoughts in response to your post:

You wrote:

(A)

I don't mind repeating myself and explaining my point of view over and over again, but are you aware that you are not letting me have the same opportunity?

I'm not following your line of reasoning here. Not only did you have the opportunity to explain your point of view, you used it.

(B)

You are simply telling me that I am wrong, but you don't explain me why my reading of that article is a mistake. No arguments, no explanations, no examples; I believe this is not fair to me.

I don't think your characterization is accurate. Your original statement was:

Genocides are usually linked to complete exterminations. We fail to realize that a group can be destroyed by other means as well. Take away their language and a group will be destroyed in no time. Force them to have a different identity, there will be no group left. What happened to Armenians is just one of the ways, but not the only way.

To that I replied:
(1)

You are applying the term "destroyed" to cultural traits rather than to the physical destruction of the individuals which belong to the group. This is different from the meaning of the term "destroy" used in the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide (my emphases), where the list of prohibited acts is exclusive, not exemplary

(2)

While your observation is correct as far as it goes, the term "physical destruction" applies to the group which consists of its members; not to the cultural traits of the group

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

To me, this means the physical destruction of some or all of the members of the group, and has no application to folkways, customs or cultural traits.

(3)

The term "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction physical destruction" refers to the corporeal members of the group, in whole or in part, and not to the values which they share as a group. If the term "physical destruction" is applied to cultural traits, it leaves a person of ordinary intelligence to guess what acts the section makes criminal.

I think these statements give arguments, explanations, and examples. Just to avoid any doubt, however, I will rephrase my argument. I think you are mistaken because your interpretation ("Take away their language and a group will be destroyed in no time. Force them to have a different identity, there will be no group left." = genocide) is not supported by the language of section (c); and because if your interpretation were used, it would be impossible to say for sure what acts section (c) was meant to prohibit.

(C)

Also can you tell me what definition of culture are you using so that religion becomes a cultural trait?

Yes. The modern (western) sciences of sociology, anthropology and psychology define culture as "the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another." The Random House Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1966); A Dictionary of Psychology ("Applied usually to the intellectual side of civilization, or with emphasis upon the intellectual aspect of material achievement, or to the degree of intellectual advancement of the individual; more specifically and technically to the sum total of the arts, science, social customs and educational aims of a people, regarded as an integrated whole.") (Penguin Reference Books, 1952).

Older usage is in accord, though the term has broader implications. See, for example, the (Unabridged) Oxford Dictionary of the English Language ("Worship; reverential homage" . . . "The cultivation or development [of the mind, faculties, manners, etc.]") (1971); Webster's International Dictionary of the English Language ("The state of being cultivated; esp., the enlightenment and discipline acquired by mental and moral training" . . . "A particular state or stage of advancement in civilization; the characteristic attainments of a people or social order" . . .) (1919). I have never seen a general definition of religion that clearly distinguished it from the term culture.

(D)

Instutionalized religion cannot be and is not a cultural trait.

How will you prove this proposition?

(E)

If it is then a religious group is a cultural group. After all, if religion = cultural group then religious group = a group based on a cultural trait. In that case, how come such a group is in this convention, if it is not supposed to be talking about cultural traits?

I'm not following your reasoning here. The members of national, religious and to a certain extent "ethnical" groups are defined by the existence of cultural traits. The 1948 UN Convention on Genocide protects those members from being killed, suffering serious bodily or mental harm, suffering conditions of life calculated to physically destroy the members of the group, suffering measures intended to prevent births within the group, and from the forcible transfer of their children to another group -- when those measures are "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, [the] national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such".

(F)

There are again no arguments and therefore I don't know why you are claiming that religion (I mean the institutionalized form; that is, starting almost from the neolithic forms) is a cultural trait.

Perhaps we will have to discuss the distinction between cultural and social as well.

Perhaps. You gave this example of what I assume you meant to be an act of genocide:

Let's assume that there is a small group of Muslims in a predominantly Christian country or a country governed by a Christian government and let's assume that there is no religious freedom in this country so that the Muslims are not allowed to practice their religion in any way, that they are under constant supervision and religious persecution. Finally let's assume that the Christian govenment is 100 percent successful. In time, the Muslim group will disappear. The members or ex-members of this group will survive, they will not be destroyed physically; but the group (in this case a religious group) will be destroyed. Eventually all these people may accept another religion. In fact there are many examples like this. No cultural traits are touched; for religion in the sense we understand is not a cultural trait.

As a rule, discussion of religious practices has a tendency to emotionalize the argument. I'll try to avoid that by picking examples involving religions which are no longer practiced (I think) and put them into a modern context, and by discussing religious practices unlikely to be shared by the majority of our readers. The issue (for now) is whether acts directed against or designed to extirpate certain religious practices fall under section (c) of the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide. For purposes of easy reference, section (c) reads:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

* * *

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

The following examples are meant to illustrate this point which I made earlier:

The term "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction physical destruction" refers to the corporeal members of the group, in whole or in part, and not to the values which they share as a group. If the term 'physical destruction' is applied to cultural traits, it leaves a person of ordinary intelligence to guess what acts the section makes criminal.

(1) Conflict between religion and criminal law. ("Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part")

(a) There is a small group of persons, mostly related by blood and who belong to an ethnic group, who worship a god/goddess of destruction. Their religious practices involve the ritual murder of outsiders. The area in which this group lives is under the overall control of a government which tolerates religious diversity, but not robbery, rape and/or murder. The government has laws making these practices criminal. Is the government's prosecution of the members of the religion, as principals and accessories to crime, an act of genocide under section (c)? Why or why not? Does it make a difference if the religion existed before the government came to power?

(b) An ethnic group practices a religion which is centered on the ritual ingestion of hallucinogenic plants. The government has laws making these practices criminal. Is the government's prosecution of the members of the religion, as principals and accessories to crime, an act of genocide under section (c)? Why or why not? Does it make a difference if the religion existed before the government came to power?

(2) Conflict between religion and health regulations. ("Force them to have a different identity, there will be no group left.")

(a) Group A is an ethnic and religious group which practices female circumcision. Scientific studies show that the practice has serious physical and psychological drawbacks, so the government bans it. Is this ban an act of genocide under section (c)? Why or why not?

(b) Group B is a religious group which believes that all things are best left in God's hands, including matters of health. The government under which the group lives has a law requiring compulsory inoculations against contagious diseases. Is this law an act of genocide under section (c)? Why or why not?

Well, my list isn't comprehensive, but it's a start in answering your request for examples. Have at it.

[yakamoz]

yakamoz -- Here are some thoughts in response to your post:

Thanks. I appreciate it.

You wrote:

(A)
I don't mind repeating myself and explaining my point of view over and over again, but are you aware that you are not letting me have the same opportunity?

I'm not following your line of reasoning here. Not only did you have the opportunity to explain your point of view, you used it.

Sorry, it is my fault. The opportunity I meant was the opportunity to read your arguments.

(B)
You are simply telling me that I am wrong, but you don't explain me why my reading of that article is a mistake. No arguments, no explanations, no examples; I believe this is not fair to me.

I don't think your characterization is accurate. Your original statement was:
Genocides are usually linked to complete exterminations. We fail to realize that a group can be destroyed by other means as well. Take away their language and a group will be destroyed in no time. Force them to have a different identity, there will be no group left. What happened to Armenians is just one of the ways, but not the only way.

To that I replied:
(1)
You are applying the term "destroyed" to cultural traits rather than to the physical destruction of the individuals which belong to the group. This is different from the meaning of the term "destroy" used in the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide (my emphases), where the list of prohibited acts is exclusive, not exemplary

(2)
While your observation is correct as far as it goes, the term "physical destruction" applies to the group which consists of its members; not to the cultural traits of the group
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

To me, this means the physical destruction of some or all of the members of the group, and has no application to folkways, customs or cultural traits.

(3)
The term "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction physical destruction" refers to the corporeal members of the group, in whole or in part, and not to the values which they share as a group. If the term "physical destruction" is applied to cultural traits, it leaves a person of ordinary intelligence to guess what acts the section makes criminal.

I think these statements give arguments, explanations, and examples. Just to avoid any doubt, however, I will rephrase my argument. I think you are mistaken because your interpretation ("Take away their language and a group will be destroyed in no time. Force them to have a different identity, there will be no group left." = genocide) is not supported by the language of section (c); and because if your interpretation were used, it would be impossible to say for sure what acts section (c) was meant to prohibit.

Obviously we are reading this text or this (c) section differently. It is understandable. This is what texts do. Since neither of us wrote the text, there is nothing else we can do to prove our points. However, I checked to see how this statement was translated into Turkish and it looks like it is close to the way I am reading it. Anyway, since we are not getting anywhere, I guess we will stop here.


(

C)
Also can you tell me what definition of culture are you using so that religion becomes a cultural trait?

Yes. The modern (western) sciences of sociology, anthropology and psychology define culture as "the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another." The Random House Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1966); A Dictionary of Psychology ("Applied usually to the intellectual side of civilization, or with emphasis upon the intellectual aspect of material achievement, or to the degree of intellectual advancement of the individual; more specifically and technically to the sum total of the arts, science, social customs and educational aims of a people, regarded as an integrated whole.") (Penguin Reference Books, 1952).

Older usage is in accord, though the term has broader implications. See, for example, the (Unabridged) Oxford Dictionary of the English Language ("Worship; reverential homage" . . . "The cultivation or development [of the mind, faculties, manners, etc.]") (1971); Webster's International Dictionary of the English Language ("The state of being cultivated; esp., the enlightenment and discipline acquired by mental and moral training" . . . "A particular state or stage of advancement in civilization; the characteristic attainments of a people or social order" . . .) (1919). I have never seen a general definition of religion that clearly distinguished it from the term culture.

I am asking about differential equations and you are giving me a book about elementary algebra. I was hoping that your examples would reflect the latest discussions in social sciences. Dictionaries give very generalized and sometimes not so clear definitions. But I don’t want to start another discussion now; I changed my mind.

(D)
Instutionalized religion cannot be and is not a cultural trait.

How will you prove this proposition?

Simple, I will refer you to some work that is being done in cognitive psychology and cognitive religion. You may start with Dunbar and his work on the natural limits of human groups. This limit is supposed to be 150 people. That is why institutionalized religion cannot be a cultural trait.

(E)
If it is then a religious group is a cultural group. After all, if religion = cultural group then religious group = a group based on a cultural trait. In that case, how come such a group is in this convention, if it is not supposed to be talking about cultural traits?

I'm not following your reasoning here. The members of national, religious and to a certain extent "ethnical" groups are defined by the existence of cultural traits. The 1948 UN Convention on Genocide protects those members from being killed, suffering serious bodily or mental harm, suffering conditions of life calculated to physically destroy the members of the group, suffering measures intended to prevent births within the group, and from the forcible transfer of their children to another group -- when those measures are "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, [the] national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such".

I was just trying say that you kept telling me that cultural traits cannot be considered crucial in the case of section (c) as if I had said that they were and then defined religion as a cultural trait. If it is a cultural trait then you are saying that the Genocide Convention does take into consideration cultural traits.

I will stop here. The rest of your reply requires getting into more complex issues and my teaching season has just started this week. I don't think I will have the time, but as I said in the beginning, we obviously don't agree on this issue and it is possible to interpret this statement in different ways, and since there is no way of deciding which interpretation is the correct one by reading the text only, it is best to end this discussions here.

with regards

timuçin

[David Thompson]

yakamoz -- Thanks for your response. I understand that you do not have the time or inclination for further discussion, but since some of your comments referred to me, here are some parting thoughts. You said:

(1)

Also can you tell me what definition of culture are you using so that religion becomes a cultural trait?

Yes. The modern (western) sciences of sociology, anthropology and psychology define culture as "the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another." The Random House Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1966); A Dictionary of Psychology ("Applied usually to the intellectual side of civilization, or with emphasis upon the intellectual aspect of material achievement, or to the degree of intellectual advancement of the individual; more specifically and technically to the sum total of the arts, science, social customs and educational aims of a people, regarded as an integrated whole.") (Penguin Reference Books, 1952).

Older usage is in accord, though the term has broader implications. See, for example, the (Unabridged) Oxford Dictionary of the English Language ("Worship; reverential homage" . . . "The cultivation or development [of the mind, faculties, manners, etc.]") (1971); Webster's International Dictionary of the English Language ("The state of being cultivated; esp., the enlightenment and discipline acquired by mental and moral training" . . . "A particular state or stage of advancement in civilization; the characteristic attainments of a people or social order" . . .) (1919). I have never seen a general definition of religion that clearly distinguished it from the term culture.

I am asking about differential equations and you are giving me a book about elementary algebra. I was hoping that your examples would reflect the latest discussions in social sciences. Dictionaries give very generalized and sometimes not so clear definitions. But I don’t want to start another discussion now; I changed my mind.

Your question was:

Also can you tell me what definition of culture are you using so that religion becomes a cultural trait?

For that reason I gave you a plain and direct answer -- the ordinary definition of the word "culture" in the sense that I used it. Your question didn't suggest that you would find dictionary definitions insufficient, or that you were asking about differential equations.

(2) You said:

Instutionalized religion cannot be and is not a cultural trait.

I replied:

How will you prove this proposition?

You responded:

Simple, I will refer you to some work that is being done in cognitive psychology and cognitive religion. You may start with Dunbar and his work on the natural limits of human groups. This limit is supposed to be 150 people. That is why institutionalized religion cannot be a cultural trait.

(a) Your conclusion is:

This limit is supposed to be 150 people. That is why institutionalized religion cannot be a cultural trait

I don't think this conclusion logically follows. Here's why:

(i) The connection between your proof ("This limit is supposed to be 150 people") and your premise ("That is why institutionalized religion cannot be a cultural trait") is missing.

(ii) The connection between your proof ("This limit is supposed to be 150 people") and the subject matter (religion and cultural traits) is missing. Concepts of cultural traits and religion both ordinarily involve populations larger than 150 people.

(b) Prof. Dunbar's theory, on brain size and the hypothetical 150 person natural limit on human groups, doesn't appear to be related to the larger concepts of culture, religion, and acts of genocide we were discussing.

(i) I don't see any connection (if one was intended) between the particular section at issue in the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

* * *
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

and Prof. Dunbar's theoretical 150 person natural limit on human groups, except that the references use the same word "group" -- in two very different ways.

(ii) All of the examples I gave for discussion involved past or present-day religious groups which had or have more than 150 adherents.

(c) In any event, the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide does not distinguish between religions generally and "institutionalized" religions.

[For interested readers, some of Prof. Robin I.M. Dunbar's writings can be found at:

Co-Evolution of Neocortex Size, Group Size and Language in Humans
http://www.bbsonline.org/documents/a/00 ... unbar.html
Vigilance in Human Groups: A Test of Alternative Hypotheses
http://www.liv.ac.uk/evolpsyc/Vigilance_Behaviour.pdf
Why Gossip Is Good For You
http://www.uboeschenstein.ch/sal/dunbar.html

and some of his books are available at:

Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... 2?v=glance
The Evolution of Culture: An Interdisciplinary View
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... books&st=*

His writings are often discussed; good results can be obtained by a Google internet search for Robin Dunbar and/or R.I.M. Dunbar.]

(3)

I was just trying say that you kept telling me that cultural traits cannot be considered crucial in the case of section (c) as if I had said that they were and then defined religion as a cultural trait. If it is a cultural trait then you are saying that the Genocide Convention does take into consideration cultural traits.

You're correct. I am saying that cultural traits define some of the protected groups, but the protection afforded by the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide extends only to the persons belonging to the groups and not to the cultural traits.

(4)

I will stop here. The rest of your reply requires getting into more complex issues and my teaching season has just started this week. I don't think I will have the time, but as I said in the beginning, we obviously don't agree on this issue and it is possible to interpret this statement in different ways, and since there is no way of deciding which interpretation is the correct one by reading the text only, it is best to end this discussions here.

I'm sorry that you are retiring from the discussion, which had promise. Good luck in your work.

[yakamoz]

David,

I didn't want to give the impression that I will quit entirely. I am just not sure if I will be able to reply to your posts as quickly as you seem to be able to do. For example, I was away for four days; I just came back yesterday. Otherwise, the discussion itself is very tempting. If you don't mind my situation then I would of course like to go on with the discussion, but not tonight.

timucin

[David Thompson]

Yakamoz -- Great! Answer when you can. This will be more interesting for me (and hopefully for the readers too) than the usual nation-bashing threads.

[yakamoz]

Hi David,

I ended up getting busier than I thought I would. Finally, I am free and will stay available for a while. So, I will go on with where we left off a few months ago. From what I see here, we were arguing over how I define culture, cultural trait, institutional religion and etc. I will continue with the same stuff and get to the genocide definition again.

[yakamoz]

I will start by going back to those examples you made to illustrate your point that “If the term 'physical destruction' is applied to cultural traits, it leaves a person of ordinary intelligence to guess what acts the section makes criminal” and try to present first how I define genocide.

In simple terms, my point is that if enforcing some laws, rules or practices create conditions so that it becomes impossible for some group to maintain itself within the limits of its own group existence and dissolve completely to the point of cultural and geographical extinction, then I would say that this group is under a genocidal policy or going through a genocidal process.

I guess we can all agree that a group cannot exist if its members cannot communicate with each other. When two individuals communicate, they also pass what would be called strategic information, the kind of information that people need to know or to have in order to be part of some group. Contrary to what some people may think, this information does not have to be some password. It can be very extensive. Genocides attack the interactions that enable this kind of information travel from one member to another or between members; in other words, it attacks not any interaction, but those interactions that individuate a group. Groups always need communication, if they are to maintain their group status. Group communication can be in many different ways. Dancing is a form of communication. If some people decide to end this communication for whatever reason then the group that depends on this particular communication field will cease to exist. If there is no other kind of link between these people then we may talk about genocide in this context.

About your examples, I would say that they are all genocides, if the policies you describe result in the destruction of some groups in these examples, that is, if these groups cease to exist because of these policies. However, since we believe in bad groups and good groups there are also bad genocides and good genocides. We have the capacity to believe that some groups are bad enough to be annihilated, and therefore we do not see some of the genocidal processes around us. That the majority agrees that some groups are not good enough to be around does not change the fact that what is done is genocide from the perspective of the people who are annihilated.

Communication is the key word here. Every group has a particular field or fields of communication that makes its existence possible. The group communication may not be disrupted totally when one of its fields is attacked. But, if, for example, ritual ingestion of a particular hallucinogenic plant is what the group is about, then, banning the plant does end the group, since it does not make sense for the group to exist anymore. There cannot be a group based on ritual ingestion of some hallucinogenic plant without the plant itself. However, if this particular ritual is one of the many rituals this group embraces and not the major one, then the group may still survive in a changed form. It is all relative.

My definition may sound very surprising and to some extent dangerous. However, if we are to define genocide as objectively as possible, that is, without privileging some types of groups and concentrate on the idea of group, then this is what it is. The rest, I mean, giving special place to some types of groups, is our discriminatory behavior in action. We privilege certain type of groups for the sake of the idea of civilization. If we start considering every type of group then there will be all kinds of genocides. In fact, there are. Humans exist in a field where groups are constantly formed, de-formed or destroyed. However, since we also have the business of forming civilizations, we cannot let this field take its natural course and we do not. We bring in some rules that we want people to follow so that bigger groups can be possible at the end. But this also forces upon us the requirement that some groups must be eliminated by force (violent, that is, bloody, or not). These are "good genocides", but there are also those that interrupt the civilizational process and these are those bad genocides we constantly talk about.

I will stop here for now.

[Ranke]

[This and the following posts were merged into this thread from "A German family's Namibia apology" at viewtopic.php?f=6&t=128753 - DT.]

Once again the issue of what is or is not genocide has been raised, this time in the context of the war waged by Germany against the Herero and Nama of German South-West Africa in 1904-05. I would like to raise a few points.

1) According to Truthseeker69:

The so called Herero genocide has been vastly exaggerated

.

There is nothing so called about genocide or the genocide against the Herero.
Building on the UN definition, but modifying it in two significant ways, Steven Katz defines genocide in the following way: "the actualization of the intent, however successfully carried out, to murder in its totality any national, ethnic, racial, religious, political, social, gender or economic group, as these groups are defined by the perpetrator, by whatever means." (131) Katz's definition deviates from the UN definition in two main ways. First, it emphasizes the intention to murder everyone in the group (whereas the UN definition includes part of the group); second, it significantly broadens the range of groups included in the definition (whereas the UN definition is restricted to "national, ethnical, racial or religious" groups.
The key, according to Katz, is first, the intention to destroy a group in its entirety, second, the "actualization of the intent." That is to say, the intent must be implemented. Two other things strike me as being extremely significant here. First, whether the perpetrators succeed or not is irrelevant. It is not about numbers. Second, it is not necessary for a state to sanction genocide for genocide to occur. Other instititutions, such as an army (or rogue elements within it), can be perpetrators of genocide.
The war waged against the Herero in SWA was a war of genocide. According to Isabel Hull, "With Trotha's enunciation of intent to make all Herero disappear from SWA, together with his far-reaching accomplishment in fulfilling his goal, he meets the qualifications that many authors have set for 'genocide'." Intended totality plus a real effort to achieve it, not the complete eradication of a people, are the standards typically used to define a genocide" What strikes Hull as unique about the genocide in SWA is that von Trotha's infamous proclamation was made "ex post facto: the annihilation had been occurring all along. The 'policy' followed and retroactively justified the actions that had spiralled from practices and doctrines as they confronted an intractable situation."(57, n. 55). In addition, Hull makes it clear that the policy and practice were implemented by the military commanders (von Trotha) on the ground in SWA, in opposition to the civilian colonial government. Furthermore, von Trotha's policy was supported by the Chief of the General Staff, Count von Schlieffen, and the Kaiser, but not the civilian government of Chancellor Bülow, which succeeded in having von Trotha's orders rescinded. (This fits Hull's main argument about institutional extremism and German military culture).

2) phylo roadking wrote:

Is it in fact correct to call it "genocide" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
We can call it that going by our present cultural and political reference points, but remember the term did not exist at that point in time, 1904...

That the term "genocide" did not exist in 1904 is irrelevant. It is a descriptive term or concept for a process or event or action. The term did not exist when the Nazis began their genocide and was coined by Lemkin in 1942-43 because he felt no other term adequately described what was happening. Now we have a term to describe the events. Whether that creates legal claims is another matter.
Interestingly, Katz writes: "Though passed in 1948, [the UN Convention on Genocide] became operative in law only on 12 January 1956. The US Congress did not ratify the convention until February 1985, after four previous efforts to gain such approval failed. And the final American legislation needed to implement the now-ratified convention was passed only in 1988. (125).

Steven Katz, The Holocaust in Historical Context.
Isabel Hull, Absolute Destruction.

[David Thompson]

Ranke -- The war crime of "genocide" is defined by international convention. What is the function of a subsequent, privately propounded rival definition like that of Steven Katz?

According to the UN website, the convention became effective 12 Jan 1951, rather than 1956, as Prof. Katz has it:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/treaty1gen.htm

For readers interested in learning more about Prof. Katz, see his biographical sketch on the University of Boston (Mass.) website at http://www.bu.edu/religion/faculty/bios/katz.html

The UN website gives the following reservations and understandings by the United States for the 1988 ratification by the US Senate:

United States of America

Reservations:

"(1) That with reference to article IX of the Convention, before any dispute to which the United States is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this article, the specific consent of the United States is required in each case.

(2) That nothing in the Convention requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States."

Understandings:

"(1) That the term `intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such' appearing in article II means the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such by the acts specified in article II.

(2) That the term `mental harm' in article II (b) means permanent impairment of mental faculties through drugs, torture or similar techniques.

(3) That the pledge to grant extradition in accordance with a state's laws and treaties in force found in article VII extends only to acts which are criminal under the laws of both the requesting and the requested state and nothing in article VI affects the right of any state to bring to trial before its own tribunals any of its nationals for acts committed outside a state.

(4) That acts in the course of armed conflicts committed without the specific intent required by article II are not sufficient to constitute genocide as defined by this Convention.

(5) That with regard to the reference to an international penal tribunal in article VI of the Convention, the United States declares that it reserves the right to effect its participation in any such tribunal only by a treaty entered into specifically for that purpose with the advice and consent of the Senate."

The various footnotes to the list of states ratifying the convention show the controversy over its provisions. It was one of the earlier treaties seeking to infringe on the sovereignty of a state over its internal affairs.