Is Genocide a Modern Phenomena?

[Apoi_Viitor]

Is Genocide a Modern Phenomena?

[bcbm]

one theory on the extinction of neanderthals is that they were systematically eliminated by homo sapiens, the bible is full of stories of entire peoples being obliterated from the face of the earth, etc

[piet11111]

No its just that with machineguns and chemical gasses its so much easier to do now.

The spanish conquest of the maya's qualify's as does the colonisation of north america.

[t.shonku]

I don’t know if Genocide is modern, but what I know is that it is a feudal and capitalist invention.

[Purple]

The 20th century was the century that took the most human lives. To say that mass murder was "invented" by capitalists is ridiculous. Every single country in Europe was killing each other by the millions. And when they were done, they did it again...

[Property Is Robbery]

The word genocide was first used to describe the Turkish slaughter of Armenians. It's not a new thing but that was technically the first genocide.

[Princess Luna]

Is Genocide a Modern Phenomena?
No , infact i would say that the 20th century had less genocide then the proceeding 400 years , the rape of Africa , Asia , Australia , and the Americas claimed far more lives then the Holocost , Armenian Genocide , and the Rwandan genocide all put togather.

[communard71]

I think Genocide is a very modern phenomenon actually. I think most of the posters here are confusing genocide with ancient and medieval (pre-modern anyway) warfare. Genocide is the professionally organized, systematic killing of a specific group of people based loosely or specifically around ideological/social/economic/religious reasons. Genocide needs the modern state to be effective because it requires a modern bureaucratic organization (which came into existence as a prerequisite of the modern capitalist state) to organize thousands of murderers across large geographical areas and swiftly evolving geopolitical conditions and it requires modern methods and weaponry to destroy large swathes of the population.
People constantly confuse the colonization of the Americas and Africa with genocide. I believe it wasn’t because colonizers would just as readily enslave people as kill them, or move them off land forcefully etc. Also, the diseases which ravaged the Americas were not systematically used by colonizers to kill indigenous people; it was more often a gruesome side-effect of the event (although of course there are examples of early “germ warfare” used by Anglo/European colonizers).
I’m not making a value judgment in favor of colonizers at all. I think the colonization of the “new world(s)” by Europeans and Americans was savage, horrible and most often, criminal. I just think to compare medieval conflicts or Spanish Conquistadors attacking Tenochtitlan with the German inspired Holocaust is academically lazy. A more apt historical example of Genocide in a pre-modern sense would be something like the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre in 1572, although it can be argued that that event was a targeted series of limited killing to inspire terror and influence larger political/social events in France.

Anyways, just my two cents. Genocide is modern, but killing, even mass killing, is not. I do think that killing ones opponents in the pre-modern world was viewed differently by the peoples of that time , but of course, those attitudes would vary greatly by region and era.

[piet11111]

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

Well the conquistadores certainly eliminated the maya's civilisation even though they did not kill everyone they found.

[Sasha]

I think Genocide is a very modern phenomenon actually. I think most of the posters here are confusing genocide with ancient and medieval (pre-modern anyway) warfare. Genocide is the professionally organized, systematic killing of a specific group of people based loosely or specifically around ideological/social/economic/religious reasons. Genocide needs the modern state to be effective because it requires a modern bureaucratic organization (which came into existence as a prerequisite of the modern capitalist state) to organize thousands of murderers across large geographical areas and swiftly evolving geopolitical conditions and it requires modern methods and weaponry to destroy large swathes of the population.
People constantly confuse the colonization of the Americas and Africa with genocide. I believe it wasn’t because colonizers would just as readily enslave people as kill them, or move them off land forcefully etc. Also, the diseases which ravaged the Americas were not systematically used by colonizers to kill indigenous people; it was more often a gruesome side-effect of the event (although of course there are examples of early “germ warfare” used by Anglo/European colonizers).
I’m not making a value judgment in favor of colonizers at all. I think the colonization of the “new world(s)” by Europeans and Americans was savage, horrible and most often, criminal. I just think to compare medieval conflicts or Spanish Conquistadors attacking Tenochtitlan with the German inspired Holocaust is academically lazy. A more apt historical example of Genocide in a pre-modern sense would be something like the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre in 1572, although it can be argued that that event was a targeted series of limited killing to inspire terror and influence larger political/social events in France.

Anyways, just my two cents. Genocide is modern, but killing, even mass killing, is not. I do think that killing ones opponents in the pre-modern world was viewed differently by the peoples of that time , but of course, those attitudes would vary greatly by region and era.

but there is plenty of evidence of planned genocide in earlier history, there are historicaly testomonies as far going back to for sure to the romans and saga/legend going back to early greek and ancient midle eastern era's about rulers giving orders either to kill all members of an specific tribe or to kill all men and capturing the women and children. you can only see this as an planned atempt to wipe out an people (assuming that these women and children will become slaves and are treated as slaves generally are, i.e. forbidden to practice their traditions/culture/language)

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

One of the earliest recorded events of Genocide occur during the Peloponnesian War, where both the Delian League and the Peloponnesian League have a habit of massacring entire polis and then replacing them with there own colonists.

These mass murders were organized, efficent and carried out by States.

[Misanthrope]

The 20th century was the century that took the most human lives. To say that mass murder was "invented" by capitalists is ridiculous. Every single country in Europe was killing each other by the millions. And when they were done, they did it again...

Genocide wasn't invented by capitalists but weapons of genocide were. Making the slaughter of entire populations more cost and time efficient.

[communard71]

You know what psycho, I think I agree with you. I guess genocide just became more efficient and easier to undertake over larger areas and over a greater length of time. The real question is; in a future communist/anarchist society, can we make sure that this does not happen? And is the tendency towards genocide a pre-communist phenomenon? i.e. an ancient/feudal/colonial/fascist occurrence?

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

You know what psycho, I think I agree with you. I guess genocide just became more efficient and easier to undertake over larger areas and over a greater length of time. The real question is; in a future communist/anarchist society, can we make sure that this does not happen? And is the tendency towards genocide a pre-communist phenomenon? i.e. an ancient/feudal/colonial/fascist occurrence?

Future communist/anarchist societies won't have imperialism/racism as a major component, thus it is unlikely genocide would ever occur.

[Dimentio]

I think Genocide is a very modern phenomenon actually. I think most of the posters here are confusing genocide with ancient and medieval (pre-modern anyway) warfare. Genocide is the professionally organized, systematic killing of a specific group of people based loosely or specifically around ideological/social/economic/religious reasons. Genocide needs the modern state to be effective because it requires a modern bureaucratic organization (which came into existence as a prerequisite of the modern capitalist state) to organize thousands of murderers across large geographical areas and swiftly evolving geopolitical conditions and it requires modern methods and weaponry to destroy large swathes of the population.
People constantly confuse the colonization of the Americas and Africa with genocide. I believe it wasn’t because colonizers would just as readily enslave people as kill them, or move them off land forcefully etc. Also, the diseases which ravaged the Americas were not systematically used by colonizers to kill indigenous people; it was more often a gruesome side-effect of the event (although of course there are examples of early “germ warfare” used by Anglo/European colonizers).
I’m not making a value judgment in favor of colonizers at all. I think the colonization of the “new world(s)” by Europeans and Americans was savage, horrible and most often, criminal. I just think to compare medieval conflicts or Spanish Conquistadors attacking Tenochtitlan with the German inspired Holocaust is academically lazy. A more apt historical example of Genocide in a pre-modern sense would be something like the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre in 1572, although it can be argued that that event was a targeted series of limited killing to inspire terror and influence larger political/social events in France.

Anyways, just my two cents. Genocide is modern, but killing, even mass killing, is not. I do think that killing ones opponents in the pre-modern world was viewed differently by the peoples of that time , but of course, those attitudes would vary greatly by region and era.

Proportionally speaking, ancient genocides were more brutal. For example the Romans totally destroyed the Carthaginian and Dacian peoples. And just look at this (http://www.thebricktestament.com/joshua/index.html) moral role-model.

[Apoi_Viitor]

In ancient societies, are there examples of the state utilizing methods to commit genocide (which I'll define as the intended annihilation of a specific group of people) on a population within their own borders?

Also, with the strict definition I used for genocide, I would argue that (most) colonization and ancient warfare fall outside the category of genocide. For example, while Imperial Germany's slaughter of the Herero tribe would probably qualify as genocide, I think most other attempts at colonization would not... For while most imperialists attempted to subject indigenous citizens to slavery (and wipe out all dissenters), Germany's slaughter of the Herero is unique, in the fact that they pretty much intended to completely annihilate the tribe.

Even if the ends (the annihilation of a specific group of people) are similar to ancient slaughters, is the intention/rationale/reason still the same? Or is simply the means different? For example, Michel Foucault claimed, "If genocide is indeed the dream of modern power, this is not because of the recent return to the ancient right to kill; it is because power is situated and exercised at the level of life, the species, the race, and the large-scale phenomena of the population."

[Reznov]

The 20th century was the century that took the most human lives. To say that mass murder was "invented" by capitalists is ridiculous. Every single country in Europe was killing each other by the millions. And when they were done, they did it again...

Also in places like Africa. Where African Tribal conflicts and the belittlement of women was commonfound (Like almost everywhere else during that time peroid.)

The 20th century was just the cumulative effect for the world.

[Janichkokov]

Mass murder is certainly not a new phenomenon. But hands down, the twentieth century is the most bloody century of human history BY FAR. What characterizes the twentieth century as particularly vulgar is the idea of progress and technology as liberating forces. They turned out to be more destructive than we could have ever imagined. That the "modern genocides" are all within the twentieth century are no accident. That said, I do not wish to romanticize earlier cultures. They are certainly quite brutal. But for sheer scale and scope, the twentieth century wins the unpleasant distinction as the century of genocide.

[scourge007]

Genocide is nothing new. In North America , entire tribes were wiped out by stronger tribes all the time before Europeans ever arrived.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Also in places like Africa. Where African Tribal conflicts and the belittlement of women was commonfound (Like almost everywhere else during that time peroid.)

I'm not quite sure "African Tribal conflicts" are examples of genocide...

[Revolution starts with U]

No. Have you ever read a history book?

[Dimentio]

In ancient societies, are there examples of the state utilizing methods to commit genocide (which I'll define as the intended annihilation of a specific group of people) on a population within their own borders?

Also, with the strict definition I used for genocide, I would argue that (most) colonization and ancient warfare fall outside the category of genocide. For example, while Imperial Germany's slaughter of the Herero tribe would probably qualify as genocide, I think most other attempts at colonization would not... For while most imperialists attempted to subject indigenous citizens to slavery (and wipe out all dissenters), Germany's slaughter of the Herero is unique, in the fact that they pretty much intended to completely annihilate the tribe.

Even if the ends (the annihilation of a specific group of people) are similar to ancient slaughters, is the intention/rationale/reason still the same? Or is simply the means different? For example, Michel Foucault claimed, "If genocide is indeed the dream of modern power, this is not because of the recent return to the ancient right to kill; it is because power is situated and exercised at the level of life, the species, the race, and the large-scale phenomena of the population."

Yes, there are. The Roman destruction of Judea after the Jewish rebellion, where a conservative estimate yields 1 million people killed. Also, the Incan destruction of the Canaris, as well as the Spanish treatment of the Moriscos.

[TC]

Genocide is the professionally organized, systematic killing of a specific group of people based loosely or specifically around ideological/social/economic/religious reasons.

"1 Samuel 15

1 Samuel 15:2-8: Thus saith the LORD of hosts...Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. And Saul smote the Amalekites

15:8 - And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword."

15:18 And the LORD sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed.

15:20 And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, and have gone the way which the LORD sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites."


"Joshua 11

Joshua 11:10 At that time Joshua turned back and captured Hazor and put its king to the sword. (Hazor had been the head of all these kingdoms.) Everyone in it they put to the sword. They totally destroyed them, not sparing anyone that breathed, and he burned Hazor itself.

11:12 Joshua took all these royal cities and their kings and put them to the sword. He totally destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded.

11: 13 Yet Israel did not burn any of the cities built on their mounds—except Hazor, which Joshua burned.

11: 14 The Israelites carried off for themselves all the plunder and livestock of these cities, but all the people they put to the sword until they completely destroyed them, not sparing anyone that breathed.
11:15 As the LORD commanded his servant Moses, so Moses commanded Joshua, and Joshua did it; he left nothing undone of all that the LORD commanded Moses.
11:20 For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses.
11:21 At that time Joshua went and destroyed the Anakites from the hill country: from Hebron, Debir and Anab, from all the hill country of Judah, and from all the hill country of Israel. Joshua totally destroyed them and their towns.
11:22 No Anakites were left in Israelite territory; only in Gaza, Gath and Ashdod did any survive.

"Numbers 25

25:7-12

7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.


25:15-18
15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 ”They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.


25:25-35
25 The LORD said to Moses, 26 “You and Eleazar the priest and the family heads of the community are to count all the people and animals that were captured. 27 Divide the spoils between the soldiers who took part in the battle and the rest of the community. 28 From the soldiers who fought in the battle, set apart as tribute for the LORD one out of every five hundred, whether persons, cattle, donkeys, sheep or goats. 29 Take this tribute from their half share and give it to Eleazar the priest as the LORD’s part. 30 From the Israelites’ half, select one out of every fifty, whether persons, cattle, donkeys, sheep, goats or other animals. Give them to the Levites, who are responsible for the care of the LORD’s tabernacle.” 31 So Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses. 32 The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 33 72,000 cattle, 34 61,000 donkeys 35 and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man."



Sounds like genocide to me!

[TC]

In ancient societies, are there examples of the state utilizing methods to commit genocide (which I'll define as the intended annihilation of a specific group of people) on a population within their own borders?

Also, with the strict definition I used for genocide, I would argue that (most) colonization and ancient warfare fall outside the category of genocide.


That "strict" definition is totally idiosyncratic though - it is not part of the definition of genocide as generally understood or as understood in international law.

Moreover it leads to the strange conclusion that the overwhelming majority of the holocaust (which the Germans did to people outside of Germany) was not a genocide.

[Invader Zim]

Sounds like genocide to me!

It sounds to me like you are making the rather obvious error of taking anything written in the Bible at face value.

[Dimentio]

In ancient societies, are there examples of the state utilizing methods to commit genocide (which I'll define as the intended annihilation of a specific group of people) on a population within their own borders?

Also, with the strict definition I used for genocide, I would argue that (most) colonization and ancient warfare fall outside the category of genocide. For example, while Imperial Germany's slaughter of the Herero tribe would probably qualify as genocide, I think most other attempts at colonization would not... For while most imperialists attempted to subject indigenous citizens to slavery (and wipe out all dissenters), Germany's slaughter of the Herero is unique, in the fact that they pretty much intended to completely annihilate the tribe.

Even if the ends (the annihilation of a specific group of people) are similar to ancient slaughters, is the intention/rationale/reason still the same? Or is simply the means different? For example, Michel Foucault claimed, "If genocide is indeed the dream of modern power, this is not because of the recent return to the ancient right to kill; it is because power is situated and exercised at the level of life, the species, the race, and the large-scale phenomena of the population."

Have you read about Leopold's adventure in Congo, or Bartolomé de Las Casa's books?

[Sasha]

It sounds to me like you are making the rather obvious error of taking anything written in the Bible at face value.

Well, that indeed would be stupid but there is no point denying that the bible consists of very old texts so TC has an point that this proves that genocide as an concept is ancient wich makes it extremely likely that it also existed as an practice.

[TC]

I'm not quite sure "African Tribal conflicts" are examples of genocide...

Why? I think the belief that genocide is some 20th century european phenomenon in its core example is an example of euro/western-centrism.

[Invader Zim]

Well, that indeed would be stupid but there is no point denying that the bible consists of very old texts so TC has an point that this proves that genocide as an concept is ancient wich makes it extremely likely that it also existed as an practice.

Eh? All sorts of obvious bullshit was written in the Bible, it is a collection of myths and fantasies, which were of course massively inflated from whatever grain of truth they may have initially been based on. Reality, on the other hand, tells us that it is highly improbable that a bronze age culture would have the capacity to wage an actual war of extermination.

Indeed, the way the term is being used, in this thread implies a centralised and planned policy of extermination; which certainly is a 20th century phenomenon, largely - though by no means exclusively - resricted to cultures emerging from Europe. Of course genocide is actually an odd concept that means different things to different people, which makes this discussion a rather tricky one as people approach the meaning of the term from very different angles.

[Sasha]

Indeed, the way the term is being used, in this thread implies a centralised and planned policy of extermination; which certainly is a 20th century phenomenon, largely - though by no means exclusively - resricted to cultures emerging from Europe.

you dont think that the romans where capable of whiping out an complete tribe? i dont have time to look for it now but im pretty sure they did.

[Apoi_Viitor]

That "strict" definition is totally idiosyncratic though - it is not part of the definition of genocide as generally understood or as understood in international law.

Moreover it leads to the strange conclusion that the overwhelming majority of the holocaust (which the Germans did to people outside of Germany) was not a genocide.

In ancient societies, are there examples of the state utilizing methods to commit genocide (which I'll define as the intended annihilation of a specific group of people) on a population within their own borders?

The section in italics is what I've always considered (or perceived) to be the definition of genocide - the "within their own borders" was just a stipulation I added out of curiosity.

[Dimentio]

In ancient societies, are there examples of the state utilizing methods to commit genocide (which I'll define as the intended annihilation of a specific group of people) on a population within their own borders?

The section in italics is what I've always considered (or perceived) to be the definition of genocide - the "within their own borders" was just a stipulation I added out of curiosity.

Ethnic cleansing is an ancient concept.

Moreover, genocides don't need to be perpetuated by states, they could be perpetuated by groups as well. That would for example make the Christian pogroms against Jews and Pagans in Alexandria be defined as a genocide.

Genghis Khan ordered all Tartars taller than a cart-wheel to be cut down, even though they were his subjects, because they were unruly and often could disturb his plans despite trying to aid him.

[Dimentio]

When it comes to mortality in warfare, tribal warfare between small communities tend to have very high mortality rates, about 20-100% of the population of both sides. Generally speaking, we have moved to less mortality on at least a proportional basis.

[Invader Zim]

you dont think that the romans where capable of whiping out an complete tribe? i dont have time to look for it now but im pretty sure they did.

I doubt they would have been able to systematically wipe out a culture 'by the sword'. They might well have been able to via a mixture of cultural assimilation, slavery and 'the sword'. That is a genocide if you choose to associate genocide with that idea (the destruction of a culture), but it isn't if we go by the idea of genocide largely being used in this thread (the extermination of a culture).

[Sasha]

well, if you define a culture small enough (is an several thousands strong tribe an culture?) they could very whell have, but any way, this:


a mixture of cultural assimilation, slavery and 'the sword'.

is exactly what is meant by genocide as long its planned with the intent to destroy an culture:


The legal definition of genocide



(Including Discussion (http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext-printerfriendly.htm#Discussion) and Key terms (http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext-printerfriendly.htm#KeyTerms))



The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:


1) the mental element, meaning the"intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and
2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."


Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.

Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here (http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/index.htm#text))
"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.
Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:

(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide. "
Discussion:

It is a crime to plan or incite genocide, even before killing starts, 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.
Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy a group includes the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group’s physical survival, such as clean water, food, clothing, shelter or medical services. Deprivation of the means to sustain life can be imposed through confiscation of harvests, blockade of foodstuffs, detention in camps, forcible relocation or expulsion into deserts.

Prevention of births includes involuntary sterilization, forced abortion, prohibition of marriage, and long-term separation of men and women intended to prevent procreation.

Forcible transfer of children may be imposed by direct force or by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or other methods of coercion. The Convention on the Rights of the Child defines children as persons under the age of 18 years.
Genocidal acts need not kill or cause the death of members of a group. Causing serious bodily or mental harm, prevention of births and transfer of children are acts of genocide when committed as part of a policy to destroy a group’s existence.
Protected Groups:

The law protects four groups - national, ethnical, racial or religious groups.

A national group means a set of individuals whose identity is defined by a common country of nationality or national origin.
An ethnical group is a set of individuals whose identity is defined by common cultural traditions, language or heritage.
A racial group means a set of individuals whose identity is defined by physical characteristics.
A religious group is a set of individuals whose identity is defined by common religious creeds, beliefs, doctrines, practices, or rituals.
Usually people are born into these four groups. These four groups share the common characteristic that individuals are most often born into the group. While some individuals may change nationality or religion - or even adopt a new cultural, ethnic or racial identity - usually people do not choose their group identity. In genocide people are targeted for destruction not because anything they have done, but because of who they are.
Group idenity is often imposed by the perpetrators. Perpetrators of genocide frequently make group categories more rigid or create new definintions which impose group identity on individuals, eithout regard to peoples individual choices.
Key Terms:
The crime of genocide has two elements: intent and action. “Intentional” means purposeful. Intent can be proven directly from statements or orders. But more often, it must be inferred from a systematic pattern of coordinated acts.
Intent is different from motive. Whatever may be the motive for the crime (land expropriation, national security, territorrial integrity, etc.), if the perpetrators commit acts intended to destroy a group, even part of a group, it is genocide.
The phrase "in whole or in part" is important. Perpetrators need not intend to destroy the entire group. Destruction of only part of a group (such as its educated members, or members living in one region) is also genocide. Most authorities require intent to destroy a substantial number of group members – mass murder. But an individual criminal may be guilty of genocide even if he kills only one person, so long as he knew he was participating in a larger plan to destroy the group.
Other Information:
Kofi Annan's Stockholm Genocide Prevention Proposals, January 26, 2004 (http://www.preventgenocide.org/prevent/UNdocs/KofiAnnanStockholmGenocideProposals26Jan2004.htm) In Stockholm, Sweden on January 26, 2004 UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan calls for parties to the Genocide Convention (http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/text.htm) to establish a Genocide Prevention Committee and a UN Special Rapporteur on Genocide Prevention.
Ratification Status: (http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/index.htm#ratifications) 135 Nations are parties to the Genocide Convention, but 52 Nations are NOT, including Indonesia, Japan and Nigeria.
Article II was included without change in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/icc/statute/languages.htm) as Article 6 (http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/icc/statute/part-a.htm#a6) and also in the the Statutes of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and former Yugoslavia. For a more detailed description of the crimes described in Article II (Rome Statute Article 6) see the Elements of the Crime of Genocide (http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/elements.htm) agreed upon by the International Criminal Court Preparatory Commission in June 2000.
Over 80 nations have made provisions for the punishment of genocide in domestic criminal law (http://preventgenocide.org/law/domestic/), sometimes modifying the legal definition. Prosecution of genocide in domestic courts (http://preventgenocide.org/punish/domestic/index.htm#russia) is becoming more frequent.
The legal definition of genocide can be compared to five alternative definitions of genocide (http://www.isg-iags.org/definitions/def_genocide.html) proposed by researchers and scholars Frank Chalk & Kurt Jonassohn, Israel Charny, Helen Fein, Barbara Harff & Ted Gurr and Steven Katz.

[Angry Young Man]

No, it just got itself a name in the 20th Century. Atrocities that fit inside its definition have been there for centuries. I think there was an event where the Romans wiped out the indigenous population of Romania, there's the Spanish conquest of the Americas, and lest we forget, Western expansion.

[Invader Zim]

well, if you define a culture small enough (is an several thousands strong tribe an culture?) they could very whell have, but any way, this:



is exactly what is meant by genocide as long its planned with the intent to destroy an culture:

That is certainly the definition drawn up by bourgeois lawyers in the UN in 1948 for use in a specific legal framework; but of course in reality the term has a more specific meaning than that. Indeed, the defintion is deliberately open, so that it could be applied as and when it was considered expedient and that therefore devalues the defintion. Based on that definition targetting a single individual could potentially be an act of genocide because the definition employs (repeatedly) "in whole or in part"; an indiviudual is a 'part' of a group albeit the smallest single part. Therefore genocide could, based on that definition apply to any action within the stated physical element of genocide, directed as a number of individuals within a group as small as one. Yet, invariably, when we discuss genocide outside of the legal framework, we ignore this definition because it ignores the historical framework in which the term was coined; that of mass systematic extermination of cultures and ethnic groups.

Furthermore, language is not defined by lawyers except in the highly limited sphere of the legal profession, it is defined by society as a whole. Very few people, when they use the term 'genocide' as this very thread proves, use the term in the context you and I have described; they use it in terms of mass physical extermination. Indeed, bourgeois lawyers have seen the word in very different ways, for example, at Nuremberg the definition of genocide, used to describe the crimes of Nazi officialdom, given was "the extermination of racial and national groups" [my emphasis]. Similarly, the UN, in 1946 described genocide as the denial of the right to actual "existence" in the case of groups in the same way that homocide is the denial of the right to life in the case of an individual.

So again, I think this validiates my point that genocide, as a term, has different meanings depending on who is using it and the context in which they are using it which makes pinning down the origon of 'genocide', as a historical phenomenon, very difficult.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Why? I think the belief that genocide is some 20th century european phenomenon in its core example is an example of euro/western-centrism.

Of course, I would say the same to you. However, as Invader Zim pointed out, it's quite obvious that when I speak of genocide and you speak of genocide we are talking about two separate types of phenomena...

But here are some more questions I have -

1. Why did the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide occur? Why did ancient genocides occur?
2. What are the differences between Ancient Genocides (such as Rome's destruction of Carthage) and the Holocaust (other than 'how it was carried out')? Specifically, since the means of production in ancient societies was distinctly different from the modern capitalist system, does that create any differences in how/why genocide was carried out?
3. Is the Holocaust unique? Are there any other examples of genocides that have occurred within "democratic" societies? *Not that the 3rd Reich was democratic, but the Wiemar Republic was drastically more democratic than most other historical states...