In class today we watched a brief clip of a speech by Allan Ryan and his definition of genocide. He stated that there has to be killing on a large scale for it to be a genocide, with a specific number of people killed. This is a source of contention for many because, as Lemkin said, once a number of people have been killed, the genocide has already happened, and there cannot be preventitive measures taken. I was wondering if Ryan had a counterargumetn to that argument so I looked him up online and found this article.
click here
Ken Gewertz of the Harvard University Gazette states about Ryan's approach that, "Assigning strict parameters to the crime of genocide, to talk of numbers killed and other specific issues, may seem cold-blooded, but such definition is necessary to avoid the sort of prevarication that kept the United States and other nations from acting in the case of Rwanda." This article, and Ryan, make a strong case for assigning "strict parameters" to the concept of genocide. Based on the video from class and the article, do you agree or disagree with Ryan? Why? Do you think his ideas necessarily have to contradict Lemkin's? Why or why not?
Here are the links to the video, "Redefining Genocide" and another one, "Clarifying the Definition of Genocide" (also by Ryan)
Redefining Genocide
Clarifying the Definition of Genocide
9 comments:
Ok, I guess the links completely failed. Here they are again:
"Redefining Genocide":
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1195475345025967117&q=allan+ryan
"Clarifying the Definition of Genocide:"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-26943181302077898&hl=en
"Defining genocide: Allan Ryan uses his legal knowledge to find ways to classify terror" (the article)
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/08.21/defining_genocide.html
Sorry about that!
hey katie. I went in and added the links for you... the only thing u have to do next time is actually put a word in b/n the html and the /a
as for your qusestion..
I disagree with Ryan. I agree with the view that if a number is set than its a bad definition since that many people have to die before anything is done. I understand that nations may be hesitant but I don't think that more people should die before legal action is taken just b/c countries may be hesitant.
Although I disagree that numbers really shouldn't classify a genocide, I think that they are necessary to come up with some kind of legal definition. During the Holocaust, some 6 million Jews were killed and while this sounds like a lot, it was actually a small amount compared to the 60 million who died in WWII. However, in this case, numbers should not matter because it matters how and for what reason people killed and not how many. Jews were killed for a differnt reason than many other civilians and that is what classified the Holocaust as a genocide.
Ryan claims that "Assigning strict parameters to the crime of genocide, to talk of numbers killed and other specific issues, may seem cold-blooded, but such definition is necessary to avoid the sort of prevarication that kept the United States and other nations from acting in the case of Rwanda ." I agree with this notion because if there is not a set legal definition (with numbers), then foreign countries might be reluctant to act because they do not want to get involved. If there is a set number of deaths which classifys a massacre as a genocide, then this might force coutries to become more interventionist.
if there are no numbers attached to the definition of genocide, then if a person kills another on the street because they want to eliminate everyone of that race/gender/religion, etc. is this considered a genocide?
you could even make it two people. if a person kills two people with the intent of trying to kill everyone of their "category" off, then is it a genocide?
also, connecting back to the "potato famine" post, do you think that a person who commits genocide has to START the killing? that is, if there's a famine and the government (or whoever) decides not to do anything (or even make it worse) so that a certain kind of people will die off, is that a genocide?
i guess that was a lot of questions withou answers, but i'd like to see what you think! :)
-coe
I think that Ryan was explaining that numbers do make a difference because of the case coe just stated. If one person is killed because of their race/religion there is no way that can be considered a genocide. If it were considered a genocide, then we'd have a whole lot more genocides happening every day.
The number is important because genocide is "a mass killing (or some other type of harm) inflicted on a certain people."
The question is, how do we decide what number? or is it just a judgment call based on the situation? And if it is a judgment call, will this lead too foreign countries remaining isolationist?
I am still divided over whether or not numbers should be used. It does seem unfair and slightly inhumane that nations can sit and wait for a certain amount of people to die without doing anything at all. At the same time, however, if there is no set number, it makes it really easy for nations to keep claiming that, "it is not a genocide yet," and to keep holding off on interference. So it may sound like a paradox, but I think using numbers is bad because it can prevent people from receiving aid, yet at the same time it is good because it forces nations to eventually accept that something is a genocide.
this isn't entirely related, but these posts got me wondering what the official definition of genocide is. It is:
In the present Convention [UN Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide, 9 December, 1948], 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.
(http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html)
With this definition, the U.S. should be guilty of genocide in the federal government's handling of Native Americans, specifically with option (e). The U.S. gov. forced native children to attend schools where they were assimilated to the new 'US culture' - these Native American children were forcibly transfered from one group (native american tribes) to another (white americans). is the U.S. therefore guilty of genocide? Perhaps Ryan is right in that stricter perameters do need to be added.
Food for thought (though I do not endorse this idea): if the U.S. is guilty of genocide a few hundred years ago yet is not tried in court for it, why should the Turkish government be tried for the Armenian genocide? In both cases neither the word genocide nor the law prohibiting it existed.
Jordan, you bring up a really good point. Technically, yes, the U.S. should be tried for what it did to the Native Americans. However, I don't think that the effects of this "genocide" were nearly as great as great as the effects of the Armenian genocide. Does this matter in terms of who should be punished?
Aileen, I'm not sure that I agree that the effects were less. The Armenians still retain a strong cultural identity, whereas in general the Native Americans do not. Many tribes' cultures and languages were wiped out completely, never to return, partly because of the government's actions. Does this change anything?
Post a Comment