When does a mass murder qualify to be classified as a genocide? I thought about this when the Turkish ‘relocation’ of Armenians came up in the US Senate. How many body bags does the world require? Need they all be of the same race, sex or religion? And finally, is any specific modus operandi or killing method required?
Take for instance the deaths of approximately 30 000 women and children – more or less one third of the Afrikaner nation - during the Anglo-Boer War (1899- 1901). They were all Afrikaans speaking. White. In line with the scourged-earth policy and after all the farms were burned down and stock killed, they were forcefully ‘relocated’ by the British to so-called ‘concentration camps’. There they died in mass but at their own accord of hunger, malnutrition and disease.
How does this compare with the 1, 5 million deaths out of a total Armenian population of 6 million (25%)?
Let’s rather take an example that we know is accepted as a true genocide, i.e. the Holocaust. The figures provided indicate that approximately 6 million Jews were killed during WW2. It is further indicated that 9, 5 million Jews – 60% of the total - lived in Europe during 1933. This takes the total Jewish population to more or less 14 million. Calculation therefore shows that 42% of the Jewish nation was eradicated by the Holocaust.
The Mau May styled killing and the torture that goes with it may provide sufficient qualification to the farm killings of white farmers in South Africa between 1994 and today. I must however presume that the ratio of 1400 murders against 40 000 farmers are much to low to qualify as a decent genocide.
Now, is it the percentage difference or the method used to kill which made the US Senate abandon the Armenian issue? If an additional 8% would make the difference, would they consider the deaths of the Boers in the British concentration camps? If not it would be wonderful if the US Senate would publish a set of basic specifications and requirements. It will be nice to know when we are victims of a genocide or just ‘an unfortunate incident’.
J.C.Grobler.
Popularity: 2% [?]
Entries (RSS)
Powered by FireStats
October 31st, 2007 at 7:58 am
The Mau Mau styled killing and the torture that goes with it may provide sufficient qualification to the farm killings of white farmers in South Africa between 1994 and today. I must however presume that the ratio of 1400 murders against 40 000 farmers are much to low to qualify as a decent genocide.
What does “provide sufficient qualification” mean in that paragraph?
October 31st, 2007 at 8:24 am
What factors are taken into account when classifying a specific atrocity as ‘genocide’? If one of those factors is the brutality of the murders and the hate which evidently motivated it, I would presume that the requirement is satisfied in the instance of these farm murders. The deduction must therefore be made that it is the numbers and the percentage in relation to the total farming community that disqualifies the incidence from being classified ‘genocide’.
JCG
October 31st, 2007 at 9:14 am
ask ex president carter…
he seems to know, and will tell you whats happening in sudan at the moment doesn’t qualify either…
“There is a legal definition of genocide and Darfur does not meet that legal standard. The atrocities were horrible but I do not think it qualifies to be called genocide,” said former US President Jimmy Carter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7028267.stm
October 31st, 2007 at 10:17 am
JP: Following your comment I have gone through some of the available references to the term ‘genocide’. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II states that “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.
Wikipedia adds:
“Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups”.
Testing the cases I referred to against these criteria, I think that all the instances qualifies as ‘genocide’. I therefore remain convinced that any distinction made is one of political convenience.
But while I have the opportunity I wish to thank you for this and all the other comments I have received from you over time. It makes this exercise worthwhile.
JCG.