I have always understood genocide to mean "the attempt to conduct a deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." I always looked at the murder of the native people in North America as not deliberate enough to be genocide, but now I think that I may have been wrong. After all, it is the subject of genocide that should define what genocide is. If a people or other national, racial, political, or cultural group feels that it is being exterminated, that should be enough for us to agree that it is genocide. So with the Armenians by the Turks, the Jews and Gypsies by the Nazis, and the native peoples by the colonialists in North America (this is not an exhaustive list, - I can think of many other cases). It should not matter if the intention is deliberate and systematic extermination; if the targeted group feels that there is an attempt at its destruction, it is genocide.
Success too is not relevant. The fact that there are some survivors, it does not mean that it is not genocide. Nor is genocide excusable. For any reason. That is why no one can ever excuse any group that wishes to push another "into the sea". There are similar sayings about native Americans, but I will not repeat them. All are despicable.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment