Genocide vs. Ethnic Cleansing

I subscribe the the magazine "The Week" which summarizes news stories from around the world. In an article about the French charity that recently "rescued" African children in Chad (which turned out not to be a rescue but more like a kidnapping), I came upon a paragraph which seemed to deny that the events in Darfur are "genocide."

Here is the paragraph:

There's a lager lesson in this affair, said Jean-Philippe Remy in France's Le Monde. In their zeal to save African babies, the aid workers apparently broke the law. But what "fired them with such self-righteousness" in the first place was the disinformation surrounding the crisis in Darfur. The Save Darfur campaign in the U.S. and its counterpart, Urgence Darfour, have adopted a thesis promoted by President Bush but "refuted by most experts": that Darfur is a scene of genocide. If you truly believe that evil Arab tribes are trying to exterminate black African tribes, then you probably would be inspired to break the law to save at least some of the children. The reality is more banal. Darfur is a scene of ethnic cleansing, not genocide. And it's simply not true that the world has ignored the situation. Darfur hosts "one of the biggest U.N. peacekeeping forces on the planet." In their zeal to free African children, charity workers have, regrettably, "freed themselves from the truth."

After hearing guest speakers talk about the reality of the events in Darfur, it was hard for me to comprehend how The Week could publish an article denying that the situation in Darfur is a genocide.

What is the difference between "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" and why would the article categorize the Darfur situation as an example of ethnic cleansing?

The article states that most experts refute that Darfur is a scene of genocide. How are such vast numbers of experts being misled? Are we the ones being misled if the experts are right?

Summary of classes 11/13~11/23 (H block)

I hope you all had a wonderful Thanksgiving and are enjoying your break. But of course, you probably were also thinking about our class and responding on the blog! Here is a brief summary of our Genocide class from the past rotation:

11/14/07: Firstly, we learned about the term “occupy” in terms of an “Occupied Europe” or “Occupied France.” Then, we watched a documentary on “Le Chabon,” a town in France, primarily made up of Heugenaunt descendents, where the citizens rescued and housed 5,500 Jews who fled Germany during the Holocaust. Essentially, the town of Le Chabon was a “hub of resistance,” and an example of effective, non-violent resistance during genocide. We explored the “us-vs.-them” theme, as well as “obedience and conformity” theme. We discussed how this town united together to resist the Holocaust so that “everyone was involved” and people were singing resisters songs even in their Catholic churches. Some students brought up the idea whether there was an unconscious “obedience to resist” among the people of Le Chabon and if by saying “it was a normal thing to do,” and “everybody else was doing it,” others were conforming to their surroundings in order to “fit in.” Nonetheless, learning about Le Chabon served as a hopeful example of a successful resistance during the Holocaust.

11/15/07: For homework, we all read about Bystanders and Rescuers from the blue book, and reflected on the readings in a few response questions that addressed ignorance, the “illusion of not knowing,” “unimaginable horror,” self-sacrifice to believe, and heroes during genocide. We learned about a spectrum of bystanders who either consciously chose not to believe because of the magnitude and impossibilities of genocides, or acknowledged what was happening, and sacrificed their own reputation, nationally pride, family and own lives to defend the truth.

11/16/07: On our Generation’s Day, we were fortunate to have several very wise and eloquent grandparents who joined our class, and even added to the discussion. We watched a documentary called “Closed Doors,” which explored immigration laws and in particular, focused on one Jewish individual who struggled to get visas for his parents to immigrate to America during the Holocaust. Many students were surprised that there were specific laws in the American government that was meant to deliberately postpone visas for Jewish immigrants as long as possible (using lots of excessive requirements to get visas), so that they would essentially never be able to come, and instead be deported to France.

11/20/07: Students wrote an in-class essay on the role of “obedience and conformity” from 1914-1948, during genocide and in pre-genocidal societies. Good job everyone!

11/21~11/23 Thanksgiving break! No classes.

Last Questions to Consider:
How does obedience and conformity play a role in 21st century politics? In everyday life? At Lick?

Immigration is a huge topic in America, especially when it comes to electing presidents or government officials. What sort of advantages and disadvantages would America have if we acted in the same way as the government did towards the Jews (deliberately postponing visas and making unnecessary requirements) towards one or two specific groups? Is it a good or bad thing? If not, what kind of immigration policy should we adapt to improve the situation?

Do you think that disbelief and the “illusion of not knowing” applies to Darfur and other problems that we are facing now around the world? If we can’t force people to open their eyes, what are other ways of getting people active and tolerant? What can we students do individually to help?

What Causes a Genocide?

First. Congratulations on making it to Thanksgiving break. Second semester is so close, I can almost taste it. I don't know if anyone is going to check the blog over break, but since the event was somewhat timely I thought I would post nonetheless.

On Wednesday, November 21th's New York Times front page there was an article about a new Supreme Court case that the justices have just agreed to hear in the spring about the right to bear arms. Everyone should remember this controversial 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution. This is the first time the court will so clearly state if they believe everyday citizens have the constitutional right to keep and bear firearms.

The link to the article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/us/21scotus.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

This got me thinking about how genocides are carried out and what enables them to actually happen. We have studied about the pre-genocidal societies (and some of us even wrote an essay about it) that can lead to willing participants as well as some of the psychological and social reasons for participating or standing against genocidal actions. But this current event got me thinking about the actual action of a genocide, or the many actions that make up a genocide. If a genocide is a premeditated act committed with the intent to destroy, in part or in whole, a group of people, what factors in a society physically let a person "destroy" another? I immediately thought of weapons, firearms being in that category, and the relative freedom that many people have to own a gun which could potentially take away another person's life.

And so my questions to you all are:
Can a genocide happen without weapons available?
What methods would perpetrators have to use if guns were not easily attainable?
If individuals, albeit many consider themselves part of a group, commit acts of genocide, should those people be allowed to have weapons that could lead to mass murder?

After some critical genocide thinking I hope you all have a happy turkey day!

"Emergency in Pakistan- Protests Continue- Nov 15th 2007"

This is a video of the protests that are taking place in Pakistan.

The 2007 Pakistani Presidential Elections

Hey guys, sorry I'm so late in posting this, but here it is. I've been following the turmoil over the Pakistani Presidential elections over the past few weeks, and the situations that have developed in the country apply to the themes of our class.

The cause of the recent unrest in Pakistan can be directly attriuted to the onflict over the Presidential election and the circumstances that preceeded it. General Musharraf (now President Musharraf, although technically elections won't take place until January 9th) began his campaign with a violent bang that set off a chain of further violence. Musharraf imposed military control over daily life, which meant that protesters, at first peaceably protesting, were forced to physically fight back against armed men under Musharraf's command. This violence has lead Musharraf to order the arrests and imprisonment of many ordinary citizens as well academics, politicians and justice officials (mainly judges and lawyers).

The extent of Musharraf's forced control over Pakistan extends to the point where he admits that his number one priority isn't to protect Pakistan's democracy. This agenda, however, was obvious from the start, when he first imposed a (puportedly unnecessary) state of emergency, suspended the Consitution (and the rights that it guaranteed the people), removed and put the Chief Justice under house arrest, and arrested and imprisoned all of his most active political opponents (including, during the elections, Benazir Bhutto, the current Prime Minister of Pakistan). He has imposed military rule over the Pakistani people, and removed five of the six justices of the supreme court, replacing them with his own judges. In effect, Musharraf has imposed a virtual dictatorship over the Pakistani public.

There are several questions I have in relation to these events that also connect to the themes that we discuss in class. The first is in relation to the subject of upstanders: what happens when the actions of an upstander, or a very large group of upstanders, fail to achieve the desired end? What is the next correct course of action? The second relates to ignorance: could this ever happen in the United States? And if it could, would it be able to happen in such a blatant way, or would it happen behind closed dorrs? Either way, do you think the American people would react so "loudly", as the Pakistani people have?

Amnesty International Articles on US Military/CIA related to class themes

Hello everyone,
So this goes back a little bit to the theme of "just following orders". In a blog discussion a while ago someone mentioned that it would be a good idea to train the military in human rights and what are human rights violations so that the soldiers will know when following orders is not ok. That made me wonder, "Do we have anything like that in place right now?" So I went to Amnesty International's website, and found this page, and it turns out that not only does the US military training courses "not include specific instruction in the human rights or humanitarian law obligations that soldiers must obey," but the US also "trains approximately 100,000 foreign police and soldiers from more than 150 countries each year," so all the lack of focus on human rights in military training is spread around the world. Do you think that this will make it easier for soldiers to use the "just following orders" justification?
That site linked to this page, which advocates that "The US government must improve oversight, transparency, and accountability of US training of foreign forces." Something I found interesting was the last paragraph on the CIA, which essentially says that during the Cold War the CIA was allowed to engage in "covert or semi-covert military operations," and the lack of transparency led to many human rights abuses. The Cold War was characterized by a fear of communism and communists (in the US), so this relates to the theme of fear of an "other" and how that can lead to certain groups of people being granted extended power, which in turn allows those people to commit crimes against humanity. Do you think the human rights abuses committed by the CIA during the Cold War would have been possible without that fear of communism? Are human rights abuses, including genocides, at all possible without some sort of fear being instilled in the general population of the country where they are being instigated?

OXFAM

Sorry guys, I know I'm a little late but I wanted to talk a bit about the OXFAM Hunger Banquet last week and how hunger can effect a community. We've learned about genocidal conditions and how exposure and famine/starvation are considered methods of mass execution so I was wondering if any of you would consider global hunger genocide.
I think that in specific areas, like a providence of a country, where there is a government or party that is intentionally inhibiting access to necessary food and/or water that that could be considered genocide. But it would be extremely difficult to make a case and punish someone for this crime.

In terms of the effects of hunger:
- Do you think that it is possible to eliminate global hunger?
-> if yes, is it possible to have capitalism and no hunger?
-> if no, why not? Is it because of specific individuals? Habitats? distribution?

- If it is a distribution problem, how could it be fixed? Would it have to bes based on socialism or communism?

Week Summary: Upstanders and Bystanders

11/14: Le Chambon
We watched a film on Le Chambon and were introduced to the concept of "conspiracy of goodness." The villagers of Le Chambon provided shelter for around 5,500 Jews and were even able to convince the Nazis who resided in or were passing through the area to ignore what was happening. We also were exposed to the importance of background and past experience in dealing with genocide. Because the villagers descended from a persecuted people and resistance was a part of their culture, they also were trained to be upstanders.

11/16: Bystanders and Resistors/America and the Holocaust
We discussed readings from the blue book and different individuals' reactions to the events of the Holocaust. We also learned through film about the United States' reaction to the Holocaust, especially the difficulties for Jews in being permitted to enter the United States. The film also discussed the struggle of many Jews in America to advocate for resistance from America.

Lingering Questions:
-Does one's historical background affect one's ability to respond to acts of genocide?
-What role can children play in resistance? Why do women and children seem to less suspected of being resistors?
-Can the American government be held responsible for a part of the Holocaust because it withheld information about it from its citizens?
-How did the forced movement of Jews into areas other than American set up other conflicts (ie in Palestine)?