Search results1 – 10 of over 1000
The crime of genocide, which caused terrible losses to humanity throughout history, was legally defined with the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide after the World War II. The actions of killing children in a certain group, harming them both physically and mentally or transferring children to other groups can be counted as the elements of genocide. In this respect, children who are subject of the physical acts of genocide come to the fore when considering the conditions of children in the framework of genocide. However, children affected by the acts of genocide are not limited with this category. This study aims to show the extent of the effects of genocide on children and focuses on four categories of children who are victims of genocide cases. The first of these is the children who were directly subjected to acts of genocide, the second is the juvenile pushed to crime during the acts of genocide, the third is the children who witnessed the genocide and the fourth is the children who are born after sexual violence during the genocide.
Terrorism has much in common with genocide and sometimes may even be a form of genocide. In this chapter I systematically compare these two phenomena.
Drawing mainly from Donald Black’s work on terrorism and my own work on genocide, I examine the conceptual and theoretical overlap between terrorism and genocide.
Terrorism and genocide are similar and sometimes overlapping, and they occur under similar social conditions – in response to conflicts between socially distant and unequal groups. Conceptually they differ mainly in that terrorism is covert and carried out by civilians, and genocide may not be. The main theoretical difference is that terrorism tends to be upward – against more powerful targets – while genocide tends to be downward – against less powerful targets. Terrorism tends to be less effective than extreme genocide, then, and the most extreme cases have death tolls much lower than the most extreme cases of genocide.
This analysis draws from previous theories of terrorism, genocide, and social control to better place terrorism in a broader sociological context. In doing so it highlights and explains key features of terrorism, and it even helps us to speculate about the future of terrorism. That is, technological advances might in the long run destroy the social conditions conducive to terrorism, thus leading to terrorism’s ultimate demise, but in the short run they might allow terrorists to more effectively kill, leading terrorism to resemble extreme genocide in its deadliness.
The breakup of Yugoslavia and the development of conflict and massacres from 1991 to 1993 was widely reported in the West, in contrast with prior patterns of denial…
The breakup of Yugoslavia and the development of conflict and massacres from 1991 to 1993 was widely reported in the West, in contrast with prior patterns of denial, concealment of evidence, lack of recognition, misperception, and avoidance of massacres and genocides since World War II. The chapter addresses reasons why bystanders did not intervene to stop the genocide and check war crimes by asking how the situation was framed by an influential segment of the press. An intensive content analysis in nine leading U.S. newspapers revealed that a majority of articles conformed to moral obligation and rational choice models. The study concludes with a critique of political will for action and the position that it was not the direct influence of the media, which reflected rather than refined perceptions and the recognition of genocide.
Since taking power in July 1994, the RPF government has strived to eliminate the Hutu/Tutsi identities from public discourse, replacing the previous divisive identities…
Since taking power in July 1994, the RPF government has strived to eliminate the Hutu/Tutsi identities from public discourse, replacing the previous divisive identities with a unified nationalist one. For those who use Hutu/Tutsi identities outside the context of the genocide, they are considered genocidaire sympathisers, negationists and spreading divisionism. However, within the context of the genocide, the role of “ethnicity” is being reinforced and reaffirming ethnic divisions. In 2008, the Rwandan parliament officially changed the 1994 Rwandan genocide to the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi. Based on ethnographic data collected from March until October 2008, this paper will argue that within the public discourse on the genocide, the victim/perpetrator dichotomy has become intertwined with the Tutsi/Hutu identities, creating a hierarchy of victimhood. It will explore how through the process of reconciliation and in particular through gacaca the Hutu and Tutsi identities are imbued with collective guilt and victimization.
The social categories “Hutu” and “Tutsi” have long been central to Rwandan politics, though never more so than during the 1994 genocide, when they formed the ultimate…
The social categories “Hutu” and “Tutsi” have long been central to Rwandan politics, though never more so than during the 1994 genocide, when they formed the ultimate divide: kill (Hutu) or be killed (Tutsi). Since then, the Rwandan government has sought to eliminate these categories and replace them with a new, national identity category of “Rwandan.” This chapter draws on theories of state symbolic power and legibility to analyze how top-down projects of remaking Rwandans are being received from below. Specifically, we examine ordinary Rwandans' responses to gacaca, a community justice practice central to the state's National Unity and Reconciliation Program, and find Rwandans resent efforts to “unmake race” in favor of “nation” because the state's account of genocide in gacaca does not allow them to sincerely express their experiences; it activates traumatic pasts for what they feel is superficial national reconciliation; and it detracts from their material needs. These findings highlight the importance of distinguishing between compliance and conviction in research on state efforts to transform civilian subjectivities. They also suggest directions for further research. Namely, future research on state symbolic power should attend to how individual experiences with violence mediate top-down efforts at remaking civilian subjectivities, to how different forms of governance shape civilian resistance to state categorization and classification projects, and to what kinds of interests are likely to motivate people to alter their self-perceptions. We conclude by arguing for more work on state race and nation-making from the perspectives of its targets.
Purpose – This chapter examines the relationship between prenatal testing, Down syndrome identification, and selective termination practices, and it does so by considering…
Purpose – This chapter examines the relationship between prenatal testing, Down syndrome identification, and selective termination practices, and it does so by considering whether the selective termination of fetuses with Down syndrome might constitute genocidal practices.
Methodology/approach – Exploratory and speculative in nature, this chapter brings the phenomenon of prenatal testing and selective termination practices together, and explores whether the increasingly widespread termination of fetuses with Down syndrome fits within definitions of genocide.
Findings – Addressing perceptions of Down syndrome and disability, and integrating aspects of crip politics and definitions of genocide, this chapter concludes that the phenomenon of selective termination involving fetuses with Down syndrome can constitute genocide when particular definitions and interpretations are adopted.
Originality/value – This chapter is perhaps the first academic text to critically evaluate the relationship between prenatal testing, selective termination of fetuses with Down syndrome, and criminological genocide scholarship. Importantly, it does not evaluate individual decision-making practices regarding termination, but instead focuses on collective practices and conditions that work to minimize the number of people with Down syndrome in society.
A devastating racial logic remains at play in the moment of a “post-civil rights” Black presidency. Barack Obama's ascent has amplified a national mythology of racial…
A devastating racial logic remains at play in the moment of a “post-civil rights” Black presidency. Barack Obama's ascent has amplified a national mythology of racial progress in the US multiculturalist age. This mythology has fundamentally undermined both the credibility and critical traction of existing scholarly-activist languages of racism, antiracism, white supremacy, and institutionalized racial dominance. Thus, the discourse of national-racial vindication that animates Obama's ascendance can and must be radically opposed with creative historical narrations. These narrations must attempt to explain how and why systems of racial dominance and state-condoned, state-sanctioned racist violence remain central to the shaping of our present tense. The chapter approaches this problematic by examining how the historical social logics of racial chattel slavery cannot be historically compartmentalized and temporally isolated into a discrete “past,” because they are genocidal in their structuring and are thus central to the constitution of our existing social and cultural systems. The apparatus of the North American racial chattel institution must be theorized in its present tense articulations because its logics of power, domination, and violence have never really left us. The essay offers a schematic elaboration of this reconceptualization of racial genocide focusing on how the slavery's abolition in the latter-19th century provides the political, cultural, and legal basis for slavery's “reform” into the apparatuses of policing, criminalization, widespread and state-sanctioned antiblack bodily violence, and ultimately massive imprisonment. This examination allows for an elaboration of how slavery's genocidal social logics permeate the present tense social formation, particularly at the site of massive racial criminalization and imprisonment.
This is an essay that will be misinterpreted. Before I even mention genocidal rights, I want to make clear what my argument is not. First, my argument is not that genocide has not happened or does not continue to happen. Second, I will not suggest that genocide is not a serious crime. Finally, I will not try to develop a theory of victimhood – to challenge the centrality of the victim in discussions of genocide. Rather, my interest here will be the uncomfortably intimate relationship between genocidal violence on the one hand and the elaboration of civil, sovereign, and human rights on the other.
The purpose of this paper is to establish a conceptual connection between gender-based violence (GBV) and genocide. Victims of gendercide, such as femicide and transicide…
The purpose of this paper is to establish a conceptual connection between gender-based violence (GBV) and genocide. Victims of gendercide, such as femicide and transicide, should be eligible for protections assigned to victims of genocide, including the Responsibility to Protect (R2P).
This study examines genocide, gendercide, femicide, transicide and the R2P doctrine to formulate a platform of engagement from which to argue the alignment and congruence of genocide with gendercide. Using a content analysis of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees definition of GBV, and Article II of the Genocide Convention (GC) five “directive” facets are examined, namely, identity, physical violence, psychological violence, oppressive violence and repressive violence.
Expressions of physical violence, psychological violence, oppressive violence and repressive violence reflected similarity, whereas the GCs omit sex and gender as facets of identity group inclusion. The only variation is the encapsulation of identity factors included in the acts of harm.
The elevation of gendercide to the status of genocide would permit us the leverage to make it not only illegal to permit gendercide – internationally or in-country – but make it illegal not to intervene, too.
Deliberate harm based on sex and gender are crimes against people because of their real or perceived group membership, and as such, should be included in genocide theory and prevention.
This study explores a new conceptual basis for addressing gendercidal violence nationally to include sex and gender victim groups typically excluded from formal parameters of inclusion and address due to limitations in Article II. The analysis of genocide alongside GBV may inform scholars and activists in the aim to end gendered violence.
The current study starts from the premise that accounting techniques and calculations have been, and continue to be, implicated in the colonization and genocide of…
The current study starts from the premise that accounting techniques and calculations have been, and continue to be, implicated in the colonization and genocide of Canada’s first nations. Relying upon previous literature concerned with governmentality, colonialism and genocide, it is proposed that accounting techniques helped to translate (neo)‐colonial policies into practice with (un)intended genocidal outcomes. Through an examination of historical examples, the analyses highlight how accounting techniques helped to translate policies of conquest, annihilation, containment and assimilation into practice, with the resultant outcomes of reproductive genocide, cultural genocide and ecocide.