Thread: When is it genocide?

This question was posed to me recently and I turned it down I feel it is too convluted to figure-out but there's obviously gaps in determination of genocide such as in Darfur or in Chechnya (where Russians would just love to get rid of the muslims there). Genocide seems to have been the idealistic outrage of WW2 and realism has seemed to set in. It is easy to accuse the defeated of Genocide but ongoing Genocides are much harder to identify because you'll have to make enemies with those committing the attrocities and they are not yet ''defeated''.

But I think there's more to it. I think genocide is a term by westerners applied to acts of aggression by westerners as seen in Bosnia where there was virtually no mass graves, no killing, but because the people were muslims (they started the war by the way) the term genocide was promptly implemented. By sense of ethnic cleansing even in other areas by non-westerners such as in Africa, South America, or Asia, the term genocide is ignored entirely.

I'm gonna say it's genocide when the government launches an opperation with the express goal of totally destroying an ethnic/religious group of non-combatants.

Yes but clear examples exist where this has not been determined a genocide such as Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Darfur, Congo, Chechnya...the list goes on...

Genocide has a long standing international definition. It is not a matter of whether it is happening, but a matter of whether anyone chooses to intervene. While many governments may spin the definition to fit their non-interventionist agenda the fact remains that the genocide exists. Herein lies the problem, many nations have agreed to prevent or stop genocide, yet there is absolutely no body that can or will enforce the agreement.

http://www.un.org/millennium/law/iv-1.htm

I am pretty sure no one addresses the issue publically that there is a genocide in Zimbabwe not because of interventionism or not etc. as the British government has been evacuating whites and Germany is pushing to over throw Mugabe but simply because I don't think the western world can perceive or comprehend that genocide upon westerners is at all possible. I would argue this is the case because westerners are taught in large part that genocide is an act western imperialists do to poor natives or to Jews.

Originally Posted by Oliphant

I am pretty sure no one addresses the issue publically that there is a genocide in Zimbabwe not because of interventionism or not etc. as the British government has been evacuating whites and Germany is pushing to over throw Mugabe but simply because I don't think the western world can perceive or comprehend that genocide upon westerners is at all possible. I would argue this is the case because westerners are taught in large part that genocide is an act western imperialists do to poor natives or to Jews.

Africaaners back....

Originally Posted by Dispondent

Genocide has a long standing international definition. It is not a matter of whether it is happening, but a matter of whether anyone chooses to intervene. While many governments may spin the definition to fit their non-interventionist agenda the fact remains that the genocide exists. Herein lies the problem, many nations have agreed to prevent or stop genocide, yet there is absolutely no body that can or will enforce the agreement.

http://www.un.org/millennium/law/iv-1.htm

" The Convention defines genocide as any of a number of acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

problem with the wording here is it's a bit broad for general legal usage, since Nuremburg they've had a really hard time convicting people of genocide..........consider the first part: The Convention defines genocide as any of a number of acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.......... now one could use that definition to argue that the US has comitted Genocide in Korea, Vietnam, Serbia, and Afganistan. But did we truely comitt genocide in any of those conflicts? I doubt it.

Originally Posted by Latherty

Africaaners back....

No actually I had a coversation with this with someone else about this matter and have not associated with Afrikaner for a specific reason but anyone here will tell you some of the things he had been ranting and raving about. I'm sorry if this does not seem to suit you, however but if you knew what the Afrikaner Broderbund was you would understand the absurdity of linking any South African with it especially of all things over issues as broad but as intricately linked to the continent of Africa as genocide.

Originally Posted by Latherty

Africaaners back....

Indeed, probably his cousin.

Originally Posted by Oliphant

I am pretty sure no one addresses the issue publically that there is a genocide in Zimbabwe not because of interventionism or not etc. as the British government has been evacuating whites and Germany is pushing to over throw Mugabe but simply because I don't think the western world can perceive or comprehend that genocide upon westerners is at all possible. I would argue this is the case because westerners are taught in large part that genocide is an act western imperialists do to poor natives or to Jews.

that's more like ethnic cleansing......