Category: Genocide

In “Sad Days of Light,” Peter Balakian talks about how his grandparents survived during the genocide and the harsh situations they might had to face for their survival. Balakian uses imagery throughout his text to show how the Armenians suffered due to the act of inhumanity in the genocide. In the article, “Armenian Genocide of 1915: An Overview”, John Kifner describes the genocide and its consequences following the war and its impact on the other nations including the U.S. Kifner talks about the Armenian Genocide and highlights about the use of term the genocide and its negative impacts on the people. In “How Not To Do Things with the Word: Barack Obama on the Armenian Genocide,” Suren Zolyan argues that Obama avoids the use of the word genocide when referring to this period in Turkey’s history in an attempt to keep good relations with an ally, while showing sensitivity and concern for the Armenian people. The genocide caused the terrible conditions for the Armenians and supporting evidences show that how the use of the word genocide was considered as taboo and it affected the nations.

The word ‘genocide’ was invented by a polish – Jewish origin lawyer ‘Ralphael Lemkin’. Raphael followed the widely reported massacres and deportations of Armenians in his youth and then later came up with the word ‘genocide’ as an original term to reflect and highlight the phenomenon during the Nazi Holocaust in Germany. The Armenian genocide took place after World War I in the Near East and the Russian Caucasus. About 1.5 million people suffered; some were killed and those who were not killed were tortured brutally by either rape, beating, being driven through mountains and deserts without food, drink and shelter. The use of the word “genocide” has had a significant impact on how several nations have related to each other.

In 1915, the strong Armenian community in Los Angeles (California) were criticized because of the genocide and in response, the Turks condemned the U.S. for using this term “genocide.” (Kifner) He describes how the use of word ‘genocide’ caused fear by the people of Turks to the Armenians and the U.S. Moreover, the use of the word ‘genocide’ led to threatening of the White house regarding Turkey hindering the air space and ground-route access to the U.S. military. In all articles, the important literary techniques used are historic context, and selection of detail to show how people suffered from the cause of genocide and the consequences of the incident. Obama’s point of view for this word is different which avoids using the term genocide instead refers to the Armenian phrase to avoid the conflict. Balakian uses imagery throughout the text to get the significant idea of the situation during the genocide. In the lines, “She stood against a backdrop of steam hammers and bulldozers …..wind blowing through her eyes,’ Balakian describes how her grandmother had to overcome the dreadful weather conditions with the bag of fruit in her hand. (16) He says how his grandmother dealt with the difficult situations during the genocide to survive. Balakian also uses his point of view to narrate the incident. He says, “When I told her I was hungry…..on this long road,” means that the author was feeling hungry and asked her grandmother for food, but she describes the dreadful situation of the grocery store. She states that the person in the grocery store is standing with injury in the ankle and the babies are missing in the East Orange(town).

The articles by Kifner and Zolyan connects with the primary source “Sad Days of Light” by sharing the similar context about the effect of genocide on people’s lives and the outcomes after using the term “genocide.” Balakian refers indirectly to the pain of the Armenian people in his poems that they had to cope with the hard times at most. In the article of the “New York Times,” Kifner says “Turkey, which cut military ties to France over a similar action, has reacted with angry threats,” means the use of word genocide lead to the critical situation among the two countries. The author also says that after the world war, there was no peace. This situation takes us back to the historical times thinking of how threatening it might be during the war and how the use of a word can leads to a conflict between countries.

Barack Obama released a statement in January 2008 about the complicated matter for using the word “genocide” to describe the Turks slaughtering thousands of Armenians.” In “How Not to Do Things with the Word: Barack Obama on the Armenian Genocide,” Zolyan describes the Obama’s strategy for replacing the term “Genocide” with the word “Meds Yeghern,’ meaning the genocide in Armenian language. Obama’s situation was in dilemma and complex because as a candidate for President, he promised that if elected he would recognize the Armenian genocide. So, when he became the US president, he gave an unexplained expression ‘Meds Yeghern’ the Armenian name of the 1915 Genocide meaning “everything and nothing”. (Zolyan 63) For the Armenian audience, this indicates a full acceptance of their point of view and even their language, but for the rest of the world, it was merely symbolic.

Zolyan argues that the transliteration of the Armenian name of the genocide can mean “everything and nothing”. This is because for the Armenians who have lost their people, there is a great impact of this word on their lives(everything) and for the rest of the world it seems meaningless sign(nothing).

In 2006, the use of word genocide lead to the dismissal of the American ambassador to Armenia. During his stay in the USA, Ambassador Evans had a semi-official meeting with some representatives of the Armenian Diaspora in California and expressed his opinion: “I will today call it the Armenian Genocide. I think we, the U.S. government, owe you, our fellow citizens, a more frank and honest way of discussing this problem. The Armenian genocide was the first genocide of the 20th century. I pledge to you. We are going to do a better job at addressing this issue”. (Zolyan 67) By this statement the ambassador was expressing support for the Armenian people but due to difference in “point of view,” the use of word lead to the firing of the U.S ambassador.

The Armenian Genocide laid the ground for the more-homogeneous nation-state that eventually became the Republic of Turkey. By the end of the war, more than 90 percent of the Armenians in the Ottoman empire were gone, and many traces of their former presence had been erased. The massacre ended only when the pressure from the European powers increased and they threatened to military intervention in the same way they had done in the Christian Balkan countries. Therefore, these mass atrocities and genocide are often interchanged within the context of war. This shows how the use of a particular word lead to anger and tension among nations. The war can not only lead to terrific conditions between two nations, but its effect is seen all over the world.

Obama fulfilled his duties as the President of the U.S. by keeping his promise that he made to Armenian people by taking Armenian genocide into consideration and, he came up with the solution which showed concern for Armenian people by avoiding the use of the word “genocide.” This shows that how a word acquires so much power that it can have a strong influence on people and the consequences are that it can affect the alliance among the nations. The words like “mass killing”, “atrocities”, “massacres” can be used for the phenomenon, but they don’t describe the situation as the word “genocide” does. Although genocide involved killing of huge mass population by Turks, they are not ready to accept the culpability behind this incident. After Obama introduced the word “Meds Yeghern” to replace “genocide” by Obama, and it was used throughout the years to describe the incident of mass murder of the Ottoman Empire.

On April 24, 1994, Bill Clinton made American President’s Statement during an annual event and named this day as Armenian Remembrance Day. (Zolyan 66) The main purpose of the discussions regarding this topic is to make everyone aware of the phenomena of genocide without denying it. Therefore, the main communicative purpose is to pay tribute to the genocide victims but without uttering the tabooed word.

The word genocide carries a deep meaning for Armenian people as they have lost their loved ones, heritage, and other valuable things in the genocide. The genocide was not just a conflict between two nations, but it also impacted negatively the relationship of other nations as well. For instance, the U.S. was threatened by the Turks while using the term genocide. Thus, the appropriate use of word can avoid rising of crucial situations which helps all the nations to maintain peaceful relationship, and unity among the nations. This concludes that the phenomena of genocide are not a small part, but it’s a huge matter of history that needs to be taken into consideration.

Works Cited

1. Balakian, Peter. Sad Days of Light. New York. Sheep Meadow Press, 1983
2. Kifner, John. Armenian Genocide of 1915: An Overview. The New York Times. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/ref/timestopics/topics_armeniangenocide.html?mcubz=0
3. Zolyan, Suran. How Not to Do Things with the Word: Barack Obama on the Armenian Genocide” The Russian Journal of Linguistics 2019 Vol. 23 No. 1 (62—82)

Introduction:

The Holocaust was a dark period in human history, a time of unimaginable suffering and loss. As I sit here, pen in hand, I am compelled to share the story of one individual who experienced the horrors firsthand. Through this narrative essay, I aim to provide a glimpse into the life of a Holocaust survivor, recounting their journey of resilience, loss, and hope amidst the darkest of times.

Body:

It was a cold winter morning when the Nazis invaded our town. Fear gripped our hearts as we watched our neighbors being torn from their homes, their cries for help echoing through the streets. My family and I huddled together, praying that we would be spared from the impending catastrophe. But fate had other plans.

Separated from my parents and siblings, I found myself alone in the ghettos, a place of despair and suffering. The cramped living conditions, the scarcity of food and resources, and the constant presence of death were overwhelming. Each day was a battle for survival, a desperate search for any glimmer of hope.

Amidst the darkness, I encountered acts of courage and compassion that restored my faith in humanity. Strangers risked their lives to provide me with a morsel of bread or a kind word of encouragement. These small acts of kindness reminded me that even in the face of evil, there is still goodness and resilience within us.

The horrors escalated as I was transported to Auschwitz, a place where nightmares became a chilling reality. The gas chambers, the crematoriums, the inhumane experiments—these images are forever etched in my memory. I witnessed the dehumanization of my fellow prisoners, the loss of countless lives, and the crushing weight of grief.

Yet, even in the darkest of places, hope found a way to shine through. It was within the whispers of resistance, the clandestine gatherings where we shared stories and songs, and the unwavering belief that one day, justice would prevail. We held onto our dreams, our memories, and our determination to survive.

After enduring years of suffering, liberation finally arrived. The gates of the concentration camp swung open, and I stepped out into a world forever changed. I carried the weight of the Holocaust on my shoulders, scarred but not defeated. Rebuilding my life, I became a witness, a voice that would never let the world forget the atrocities committed against humanity.

Conclusion:

The Holocaust was a dark chapter in history, a stark reminder of the depths to which humanity can sink. Through this narrative essay, I have shared a glimpse into the life of a survivor, someone who witnessed the unimaginable and emerged with a resilience that defied all odds.

As we remember the Holocaust, we must honor the memories of those lost and preserve their stories for future generations. It is through understanding and empathy that we can build a world where such atrocities are never repeated. May we never forget the power of hope, the strength of the human spirit, and the importance of standing up against hatred and discrimination.

Introduction:

The Holocaust stands as one of the most horrific and devastating events in human history. It was a systematic genocide that resulted in the persecution and extermination of millions of innocent people, primarily Jews, by the Nazi regime during World War II. This essay aims to provide an informative overview of the Holocaust, shedding light on its historical context, the policies and practices implemented by the Nazis, and the lasting impact it has had on society.

Historical Context:

The Holocaust took place from 1941 to 1945, during Adolf Hitler’s reign in Germany. The rise of the Nazi party and Hitler’s ideology of Aryan supremacy laid the foundation for the systematic persecution of various groups, primarily targeting Jewish individuals. Anti-Semitic sentiments had existed for centuries, but the Nazi regime amplified and weaponized them, using propaganda and discriminatory laws to marginalize and dehumanize Jewish people.

Nazi Policies and Practices:

The Nazis implemented a series of policies and practices that aimed to isolate, control, and ultimately annihilate Jewish individuals and other targeted groups. These policies included the Nuremberg Laws, which stripped Jews of their citizenship rights and subjected them to discrimination. Ghettos were established to confine Jewish communities, leading to overcrowding, poverty, and disease. The implementation of the “Final Solution” marked the systematic extermination of Jews through mass killings, forced labor, and death camps such as Auschwitz and Treblinka.

Victims and Perpetrators:

While Jews were the primary victims of the Holocaust, other groups were also targeted, including Romani people, disabled individuals, homosexuals, political dissidents, and Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is crucial to acknowledge the immense suffering and loss endured by these communities. Additionally, it is important to remember that not all Germans supported or participated in the Holocaust. There were individuals who risked their lives to save Jews, known as “Righteous Among the Nations,” demonstrating courage and compassion in the face of immense danger.

Long-Term Impact:

The Holocaust had a profound and lasting impact on individuals, communities, and society as a whole. It revealed the depths of human cruelty and the consequences of unchecked hatred and prejudice. The Holocaust shattered families, decimated communities, and left a haunting legacy of trauma and grief. The establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, as a response to the Holocaust, marked a significant turning point in Jewish history, providing a homeland and a sense of security for many survivors.

Lessons Learned and Remembrance:

The Holocaust serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of intolerance, racism, and discrimination. It compels us to confront the darkest aspects of human nature and work towards creating a world where such atrocities are never repeated. Education, remembrance, and commemoration play crucial roles in honoring the memory of the victims and ensuring that the lessons of the Holocaust are never forgotten.

Conclusion:

The Holocaust remains a painful and indelible chapter in human history. Its magnitude and the unimaginable suffering inflicted upon millions of innocent people demand our attention and remembrance. By understanding the historical context, Nazi policies, and the lasting impact of the Holocaust, we can strive for a more inclusive and tolerant world, where the dignity and rights of all individuals are protected and cherished.

The word ‘genocide’ was invented by a polish – Jewish origin lawyer ‘Ralphael Lemkin’. Raphael followed the widely-reported massacres and deportations of armenians in his youth and then later on he came up with the word ‘genocide’ as an original term to reflect and highlight the phenomenon.The Armenian genocide is the phenomenon of terribly killing of people after World War I in the Near East and the Russian Caucasus. About 1.5 million people suffered; some were killed and those who were not killed were tortured brutally by either rape, beating, driving through mountains and deserts without food, drink and shelter. (thesis statement)

In “How Not To Do Things with the Word: Barack Obama on the Armenian Genocide,” Suren Zolyan talks how Obama deals with the situation by using an interpretive approach to describe the genocide. He describes how the use of word ‘genocide’ caused fear by the people of Turks to the Armenians and the U.S. In the article, “Armenian Genocide of 1915: An Overview”, Kifner describes the genocide and its consequences following the war and its impact on the other nations including the U.S. Thesis John Kifner talks about the Armenian Genocide and highlights about the use of term genocide and its impacts. In 1915, the strong Armenian community in Los Angeles (the United States)were criticized because of the genocide and in response, the turks condemned the U.S. for using this term “genocide.” (Kifner) Moreover the use of word ‘genocide’ lead to threatning of the White house regarding the Turkey hindering the air space and ground-route access to the U.S. military. In both articles, the important literary techniques used are historic context, and selection of detail is to show how the use of a particular word can have an impact on the nation. Lemkin uses “point of view” to state the situation of the armenain people during war by giving a particular term whereas obama’s point of view for this word is different which can be seen in the text.

Barack Obama released a statement in January, 2008 about the complicated matter for using the word “genocide” to describe the Turks slaughtering thousands of Armenians.” In “How Not To Do Things with the Word: Barack Obama on the Armenian Genocide,” Zolyan describes the Obama’s strategy for replacing the term “Genocide” with the word “Meds Yeghern,’ meaning the genocide in Armenian language. Obama’s situation was in dilemma and complex because as a candidate for President, he promised that if elected he would recognize the Armenian genocide. So, when he became the US president, he gives an unexplained expression ‘Meds Yeghern’ (Zolyan 63) the Armenian name of the 1915 Genocide) means “everything and nothing”. For the Armenian audience, this indicates a full acceptance of their point of view and even their language, but for the rest of the world, it was vague sign.

In “How Not To Do Things with the Word: Barack Obama on the Armenian Genocide,” It is argued that the transliteration of the Armenian name of the genocide can mean “everything and nothing”. This is because for the Armenians who has lost their people has great impact of this word on their lives(everything) and for the rest of the world it seems meaningless sign(nothing).

On April 24, 1994, Bill Clinton made American President’s Statement during an annual event and named this day as Armenian Remembrance Day. He also established a particular textual pattern with its vocabulary for such addresses, later inherited by George W. Bush.The discourse on the one hand shows political loyalty regards to the US approach to 1915 events, while on the other hand it is determined by foreign policy indications with regard to the usage of the term ‘genocide’. (Zolyan 66)The main objective, nevertheless, is to make everyone aware of the phenomena of genocide without denying it. Therefore, the main communicative purpose is to pay tribute to the genocide victims but without uttering the tabooed word. This case is more than the conventional political correctness; it can be considered as a peculiar manifestation of taboo in modern ritualized political communication.

In 2006, the use of word genocide lead to the dismissal of the Americcan ambassador to Armenia. During his stay in the USA, Ambassador Evans had a semi-official meeting with some representatives of the Armenian Diaspora in California and expressed his opinion:“I will today call it the Armenian Genocide. I think we, the U.S. government, owe you, our fellow citizens, a more frank and honest way of discussing this problem. The Armenian genocide was the first genocide of the 20th century. I pledge to you. We are going to do a better job at addressing this issue”. By this statement the ambassador was expressing support for the armenain people but due to difference in “point of view” the use of word lead to the firing of U.S ambassador.

In the article of the “New York Times,” Kifner says “Turkey, which cut military ties to France over a similar action, has reacted with angry threats,” means the use of word genocide lead to the critical situation among the two countries. The author also says that after the world war, there was no peace. This situation takes us back to the historical times thinking of how threatening it might be during the war and how the use of a word can lead to a conflict between countries.

The U.S ambassador, Henry Morganthau Sr., was also outspoken. In his memoirs, the ambassador would write: “When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact.” Henry Morgenthau Sr. was highly troubled by the atrocities committed against the Armenians and was among those who sought to rouse the world’s conscience in response. I

The Armenian Genocide laid the ground for the more-homogeneous nation-state that eventually became the Republic of turkey. By the end of the war, more than 90 percent of the Armenians in the Ottoman empire were gone, and many traces of their former presence had been erased. The massacre ended only when the pressure from the European powers increased and they threatened to military intervene in the same way they had done in the Christian Balkan countries.

Therefore, this mass atrocities and genocide are often perpetrated within the context of war. This shows how the use of a particular word lead to anger and tension among nations. The war can not only lead to terrific conditions between two nations, but its effect is seen all over the world.

Work Cited

1. Kifner, John. “Armenian Genocide of 1915: An Overview” The New York Times https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/ref/timestopics/topics_armeniangenocide.html?mcubz=0
2. Zolyan, Suran. “How Not To Do Things with the Word: Barack Obama on the Armenian Genocide”
3. The Russian Journal of Linguistics 2019 Vol. 23 No. 1 62—82

History of the first half of the 20th century is saturated with the cases of fierce political and military confrontation between states and their alliances, as well as those between local communities within the state borders. Genocide became one of the most severe and tragic embodiments of this confrontation. Historical science tends to provide reasons lying in the dimension of political, economic and territorial interest, or in that of nationalism; sometimes it is stated that genocide was caused by certain religious motifs and that religious people had the role of the perpetrators of genocide.

This work is aimed at analyzing the availability of religious implication in genocide and corroborating the following statement: religious people, motivated by religious convictions, were more likely than others to resist genocidal policies and attempt to help the victims. The research is focused on genocide of the Jews in Nazi Germany before and during the World War II and genocide of the Armenians in Ottoman Empire in 1915.

According to the definitions of this term, genocide is a set of intentional measures aimed at extermination of the population belonging to a certain ethnical, national, racial, or religious group; in the first half of the 20th century, genocide turned into an active and legitimate governmental policy in some states. The mentioned criteria of persecution lead to the idea that the reason of genocidal policy also lies in the dimension of the nationality or religion, which would mean that religious people initiated and headed execution of genocidal policy. However, instead of corroborating this statement automatically, we will refer to the works of scientists who have researched genocide through the prism of religious influence.

Genocide of the Jews

Relation between Christianity and Judaism has a long history of a certain confrontation: Judaism has always served as “the other” religion to Christianity, providing a point against which Christianity can position itself. Besides the closed nature of Judaism, the reason for the opposition was the “revolutionary” essence of Christianity which implied alternative interpretation of different matters comparing to Judaism; thus, two religions which opposed to each other so substantially could not always co-exist in harmony. However, it obviously does not mean automatically that the Nazi were inspired by the Christian movement. Thus, we face the necessity to find out whether Christianity assisted or otherwise resisted the genocide of the Jews.

Robert P. Eriksen’s research describes the connection between Christianity and Nazism. The author investigates the course of life of Gerhard Kittel, a German Protestant theologian who was devoted heartily to both Christianity and anti-Semitism, and alludes to the names of other Protestant theologists, such as Paul Althaus and Emanuel Hirsch.

What Ericksen focuses on is the confrontation between the “old” and the “new” order in the German society. He claims that many German Christians “believed that the modern, secularizing world threatened to destroy the traditional, Christian, German culture they loved”.¹ They felt themselves in the opposition to the ideals of the French Revolution, industrialization, and other “innovative” social tendencies.

However, we see that the matters they opposed lay in the dimension of political, social and cultural life, and it does not mean that this conservatism is based on Christianity. Besides, it is not clear why Christianity could bear conservatism only in Germany: Christianity was the dominant religion in Western European countries; however, it did not hinder spreading the influence of the French and industrial revolutions throughout Europe. Finally, Ericksen says that Kittel was, first of all, conservative in his political position, which does not correlate necessarily with the religious views: political conservative movements exist in many countries independently from the religion.

At the same time, the question arises: was the Nazi movement devoted so strongly to the anti-modern ideas? First of all, neither Hitler, nor other key figures of the Nazi regime were the religious people, which already makes the statement about religious motif in genocide doubtful; secondly, the Nazi ideology did not use the religious rhetoric and operated with such terms as “race”, “nation”, “blood” (the key term was a German word “Volk”: it cannot be translated directly, but its meaning lies between the terms “ethnos” and “nation”). Besides, Ericksen says that despite Nazism formally opposed to the modern trends, it nevertheless did not reject it completely. Their intent to “return to a soil” co-existed successfully with acceptance of innovative achievements in science, industry and engineering.²

The explanation is evident: what Hitler desired was to obtain power and to fulfill his plans. The role of religion in genocide of the Jews came to intentional manipulation of the German elite: it served as a tool in the hands of governors focused on secular power itself. The title of the German anti-Semitic organization created in 1939, which was Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Church Life, is an eloquent argument for this assumption. A new movement of Aryan Christianity appeared in Germany within the borders of institutional Protestantism. Hitler’s mission was positioned as that of the modern Messiah, and Germany staked on Christianity intending to perform Jesus as an Aryan, removing any reference to Jewish culture.

In contrast, let us consider the role of Christianity in resisting genocide. Jessica A. Sheetz-Nguyen has devoted her research to the activity of a community headed by Margit Slachta which helped the Jews to escape from Nazi persecution. The Hungarian woman considered inhumane Nazi ideology opposite to Chirstian religion with its mercy and humanity; as well, Slachta agreed that German National Socialism was oriented at conquering political power and economic resources and thus set the aim to control over the political, economical and cultural fields of life, as well as to destruct and enslave certain minorities.

As for Slachta, she was considered to have been inspired by the postulates of Christianity, which allowed her to place “contemporary problems within a spiritual framework”.³ The woman said she accepted the humane principles promoted by the Christian movement and was inspired to the social activity by the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII.⁴ She stated that Christianity taught her to perceive all the people equal and to defend their equality and rights, supporting the ideals of humanity and mercy. Many religious women joined her movement, and the organization headed by Slachta saved many lives of people whom Nazism took aim at, despite the incredible risk their members took.

Besides the example of Slachta and her organization, it is reasonable to consider the reaction of the Church to the actions of genocide. Since the beginning of the 1930s, the Catholic Church criticized National Socialism and opposed to it. Likewise, the Nazi also behaved aggressively towards the Church, decreasing the number of Catholic organizations, schools and press. The position of Church was that the matters of ethnos, nation, race, or blood should not be a subject for idolatry, as this ruins the divine order, even if the community considers that it serves to true ideals and thus has good intents. During the World War II, many priests became the victims of the Nazis; however, Church saved the lives of thousands people, hiding them in the monasteries.

Genocide of the Armenians

In the beginning of his research devoted to genocide of the Armenians, Ronald G. Suny mentions the importance of millet, which “was an important marker of difference”, and correspondence of religion to ethnicity and even to a class.⁵ However, Suny performs “sense of loss of status” and “encouragement of state authorities” as the main reasons of genocide. In fact, this statement does not contradict to that made by Lewis whom Suny criticizes in his work: Lewis states that the Armenian settlements had formed a dividing line within the Turkish territory and thus had become a kind of a time bomb.⁶

Suny disagrees to Lewis’s rhetoric which includes such expressions as “nearer [the Turkish] home”, “Turkish homeland” etc.; he mentions that this land belonged to the Armenians centuries before. However, could this historical reference be important for the Turks who considered the rights to this land unquestionable? Suny provides the following quote of the Turks, “Today we lost our sacred national rights which were earned with our ancestors’ blood.”⁷ Thus, Lewis’s position oriented on representing the Turks’ point of view seems to be quite appropriate in this case: for the Turks who were so confident in their rights, it did not matter who in fact inhabited these lands earlier.

The matter is that the Armenian population began to improve its position in society, participating actively in trade and finance and buying large landholdings, which leads to the idea that the reason of confrontation was pure material interest; it could be any other minority which would claim to the Turks’ territory, but it happened so that the Armenians showed the strongest threat to the resources which the Turks considered belonging to them, as well as to the superior status they had had for centuries. Would genocide happen if the Armenians continued living in their deteriorated position and did not claim to the Turks’ prosperity? Did the Turks desire and put strong effort to convert the Armenians to Islam? The answers are certainly negative.

The confrontations between two separated communities had been taking place for centuries, like in numerous cases from the World history; however, they never reached the extent of genocide: the situation exacerbated when the threat became serious, and the Turkish power’s indifference to the matters of persecuting the “others” inspired the Turks and legitimized their actions.

This research has provided the argumentation to support the following statement: the core of the felony of genocide was the desire for conquering power, obtaining and defending the material resources and status; on contrary, religion equipped people with the peaceful ammunition of humanity and mercy and inspired to resist to genocide by saving peoples’ lives and promoting their humane ideals, and this positive influence is measured in the number of those who survived being saved by the religious people.

Footnotes

1. Robert P. Ericksen, “Genocide, Religion, and Gerard Kittel: Protestant Theologians Face the third Reich”, in In God’s Name: Genocide and Religion in the Twentieth Century, ed. Omer Bartov and Phyllis Mack (New York: Berghahn Books, 2001), 64.
2. Ericksen, 65.
3. Jessica A. Sheetz-Nguyen, “Transcending Boundaries: Hungarian Roman Catholic Religious Women and the “Persecuted Ones”, in In God’s Name: Genocide and Religion in the Twentieth Century, ed. Omer Bartov and Phyllis Mack (New York: Berghahn Books, 2001), 226.
4. Sheetz-Nguyen, 224.
5. Ronald Grigor Suny, “Religion, Ethnicity, and Nationalism: Armenians, Turks, and the End of the Ottoman Empire,” in In God’s Name: Genocide and Religion in the Twentieth Century, ed. Omer Bartov and Phyllis Mack (New York: Berghahn Books, 2001), 24.
6. Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), 365.
7. Suny, 38.

The Nazi genocide of Jews is one of the darkest pages in the history of humanity. Millions of Jews were killed because of their faith and their ethnicity. It has been accepted that the Nazi genocide is the extreme manifestation of anti-Semitism, which is deeply rooted in the way the human society developed (Bauman 31). Clearly, the theory of Social Darwinism that was especially popular in the 19^th and the first part of the 20^th centuries contributed greatly to Nazi genocide ideology. It is possible to trace the way the Jews settled and assimilated in western countries and the way the ideas of Social Darwinism affected the society to see the link between Nazi genocidal ideology and the theory of Social Darwinism.

It is necessary to note that anti-Semitism in Germany did not have a significant support among people compared to other European countries (for example, France) prior to the end of 19^th and beginning of the 20^th centuries (Bauman 32). Jews settled in German lands and they had an opportunity to earn their living. However, certain trends in the society led to development of aggression towards this specific ethnicity.

First, it is possible to trace the factors that affected certain alienation and then victimization of Jews. It started with development of national states in the Middle Ages. One of major reasons for this estrangement was Judaism, which was seen by Christian clergy as the most dangerous rival (Bauman 37). Of course, Christian priests could not start a war against Jews as it was in the case with Islam or, later, religious beliefs of people in the new world. Judaism was the basis of Christianity and it could not be seen as total heresy.

Christianity evolved on the basis of the Holy Books of Judaism. At the same time, Jews did not want to totally assimilate and adopt the ways of Christianity. They were different and they were aliens. This is why Christian clergy developed specific rules that could not be broken. These rules prevented Jews from occupying certain social positions (for example, taking up certain jobs or running certain businesses) and they even had to wear particular clothes and sometimes live in particular places separately from the core population (Bauman 36). However, this was still appropriate for both parties as they could co-exist.

When countries became more secular, the attitude towards Jews did not change, as nobility became the force that estranged people of that ethnicity. It is necessary to note that Jews were quite successful in the areas they were allowed to operate and they could soon become a significant power. Clearly, nobility could not let ‘aliens’ take away their power and their privileges. Estrangement of Jews continued.

This trend developed into a very specific and dangerous reaction. The rise of nationalism in European countries in the 19^th century was the basis for development of anti-Semitism. Political and social constraints made people unsatisfied with the situation and they needed to find the reason for their issues. Jews became an ideal ethnic group to become that reason. Jews’ otherness made them seem the evil force that created the problems people were facing.

It is important to add that development of capitalism also accounted for the spread of anti-Semitism. As has been mentioned above, Jews succeeded in spheres that were left for them. These spheres often involved usury (which later transformed into banking). Jews also achieved a lot in trade and later in industries. Jewish capitalists became a symbol of the wrongs of the capitalist system and socialist movements often saw Jews and capitalists as one and the same enemy (Bauman 48). When Nazism appeared, the opposition to capitalism (and opposition to Judaism, which was quite covert) adopted the ideology of the Nazi and their ways to solve the issue.

Apart from otherness, there were other reasons for development of anti-Semitism and its extreme form, Nazi genocidal ideology. Social Darwinism that became quite popular in European countries was one of these factors. Social Darwinism is based on the theory of Darwin. The idea of the conflict of species and the supremacy of the strongest became very popular. Marx developed his conflict theory that concentrated on the inevitable conflict between different classes (Bauman 47). It was accepted that people (both individuals and entire classes or even societies) could and had to participate in the constant struggle for resources. It was also accepted that the strongest always took control over all the necessary resources.

Nazi ideology was grounded on the same assumptions. Hitler stressed that there were nations of the higher background that were superior and there were inferior nations. In other words, Hitler as well as his followers believed that some nations had the right to take over control over others and their resources due to the fact that they were superior and, hence, stronger. Clearly, Hitler believed and persuaded many people that the Germans were the superior race that had the right to change the world order and the order had to be changed. There were several reasons why Jews were regarded as one of the most dangerous enemies of the German race.

As has been mentioned above, Jews had been estranged for centuries and that played the central role in the process of their victimization in the first part of the twentieth century. However, the Nazi provided a number of particular reasons that, as they thought, justified their genocidal ideology. Hitler kept saying that Jews were eternal wanderers, as they did not have their own land. For the Nazi, this was one of the major factors that revealed inferiority of the nation (Bauman 35).

It is important to note that Jews did have to wander and this nation had a very long history of migration. Jews did not have their own land and state when other nations had already developed particular states with certain ideologies and cultures. Of course, it does not follow that the Jews were inferior. Jewish scholars stressed that “political asceticism” of Jewish people is rooted in their philosophy and their religious believes (Ha-am 258).

At the period of the First Temple, Jewish prophets focused on the spiritual aspect (Ha-am 258). According to them, “it is only by the spirit that life, whether individual or national, can be raised to a higher plane” (Ha-am 258). They did not reject the need to create their national entity but the spiritual component was much more important for them.

During the period of the Second Temple, this paradigm became integrant into the worldview of Jews. Their attempts to develop their state were quite unsuccessful as they saw the way power corrupted their leaders who started thinking about material things and forgot about the spiritual component, which negatively affected the development of the state and individuals (Ha-am 258). This led to development of certain repulsive attitudes towards the state.

However, the Nazi as well as some western scholars tried (quite successfully) to communicate the absence of the Jewish state in a very specific way. They claimed that Jews hated the very idea of the state and tried to destroy any state formation. The supporters of the Nazi ideology concluded that Jews also wanted to destroy their state and, hence, they had to be stopped. The best way to stop them, as seen by the Nazi, was complete extermination. Thus, according to Nazi ideology, the fact that Jews did not have their state made them inferior and their desire to destroy states made them dangerous enemies. These were two major assumptions and justifications of the Nazi genocidal ideology.

In conclusion, it is possible to note that social Darwinism contributed greatly to development and popularity of Nazi genocidal ideology. The otherness of Jews and their peculiar form of assimilation (ability to succeed in some spheres and being still quite different) made them estranged and alienated.

This alienation still persisted in the 19^th century when Social Darwinism occurred and in the 20^th century when Nazi ideology appeared. Jews became a ‘perfect’ object for hatred as they started embodying the wrongs of the society. More so, the fact that Jews did not have their land and their state was seen as the proof of their inferiority and ill intentions. Therefore, Nazi used all this to make Germans believe that they had the right (or even had) to exterminate the race, which was seen as the embodiment of the wrongs of the human society.

Works Cited

Bauman, Zygmunt. Modernity and the Holocaust. Ithaca, NY: Wiley, 2013. Print.

Ha-am, Ahad. “Flesh and Spirit.” The Zionist Idea: A Historical Analysis and Reader. Ed. Arthur Hertzberg. New York, NY: Meridian, Inc., 1997. 256-260. Print.

Introduction

The subject matter of genocide is complex and upsetting as it is directly linked to lives lost as a result of it. Genocide refers to intentional actions targeted at destroying a group of people either in part or whole, which means that it is a violent act against individuals that belong to a specific population. The term came to be used in the general public after World War II once it became known how the Nazi regime targeted European Jews with the intent to eliminate as many of them as possible. Genocide became the subject of both fiction and non-fiction literature as society was concerned by its outcomes and the overall impact on the world population. As the subject matter of Maus, a comic book by Art Spiegelman, deals with the Holocaust, the issue of genocide is the central running theme. The Holocaust also referred to as Shoah, referred to the genocide committed against European Jews by the regime of Nazi Germany. The government of the country under the leadership of Hitler persecuted and murdered Jews who lived on the European territory based on anti-Semitic ideology. The book depicts its author interviewing his father about his experience as a Polish Jew who survived the Holocaust. Maus is one of the highest critically-acclaimed comic books ever since the publishing date in 1986 for combining visionary literature and one of the most complex subjects in global history.

The Armenian Genocide or Armenian Holocaust took place before the WWII Holocaust and referred to the extermination of more than 1.5 million Armenians within the Ottoman Empire. Armenians represent an ethnic group of individuals residing on the territories of the Armenian Highlands of Western Asia. Today, Armenians make up the largest section of the population of Armenia; with the most significant diasporas living in Russia, the United States, and France. The starting date to the Armenian Genocide is considered April 24, 1915, when the authorities of the Ottoman Empire arrested and deported up to two hundred and seventy Armenian community leaders and intellectuals from Constantinople (modern Istanbul) to Ankara. Eventually, most of the deported Armenians were murdered. The genocide was implemented during World War I and was carried out in two steps: the intentional killing of large numbers of the able-bodied Armenian male population through forced labor and massacre as well as the deportation of women and children.

Connecting the topic of the Armenian Genocide with the themes discussed in Maus may lead to an interesting exploration as the issue of genocide is extremely multi-faceted (Krikorian 486). The persecution and intentional murder of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire regime during World War I was repeated during World War when Nazi Germany targeted European Jews. Therefore, the subject of genocide is universal as the populations subjected to murder and violence were both intentional and were associated with similar goals and ideologies. Thus, the experiences of Armenians during WWI are not dissimilar from what European Jews went through at the time of WWII, which supports the effectiveness of connecting the Armenian Genocide with Maus within the topical discussion of genocide as a historical occurrence.

Maus as a Fundamental Contributor to the Discussion of Armenian Genocide

Among the wide variety of literature, film, exhibitions, monuments, and documentaries on the subject of the Holocaust, how Art Spiegelman approached the issue in Maus is one of the most striking and creative. Through visual storytelling, the author explored and addressed the burden and the legacy of the traumatic memories associated with experiencing the Holocaust as a second-generation survivor (Elmwood 691). What is interesting about the novel, in general, is that the combination of a wide range of themes, genres, and characterizations resulted in a unique balance.

Divided into two parts: Maus I: My Father Bleeds History and Maus II: And Here My Troubles Began, the graphic novel tells the story of Vladek and Anja Spiegelman, the survivors of Auschwitz. Their son, Art, records the memories of the Holocaust through a series of interviews. An important point of the interviews relates to the changing status of the position of Jews in Poland through the introduction of anti-Semitic policies by the Third Reich. The children of Holocaust survivors grew up with the memory of both the presence and the absence of the event in their lives, which what makes Maus’s narrative so complex and multi-dimensional. As mentioned by Anne Karpf, “it seemed then as if I hadn’t lived the central experience of my life – at its heart, at mine, was an absence” (qtd. in McGlothlin 254).

Armenian genocide preceded the Holocaust but should not be regarded as an event that is less significant in its impact on society. The Turks that ruled the Ottoman Empire took a series of intentional acts to slaughter and deport millions of Armenians from their homes. During the first years of the First World War, Turkey’s leading party in the government set a plan into motion to eliminate Armenians from the Ottoman Empire. At the beginning of the 1920s, when the mass killings and deportations finally ended, the estimated death toll was between 600,000 and 1.5 million people, with even more being forcefully eradicated from the country. Modern historians refer to this event as genocide as the government of Turkey took pre-determined and planned steps to decrease the population of Armenians. It is important to note that while Germany acknowledged a large number of crimes against European Jews committed by Hitler’s Nazi regime, the Turkish government is still having issues with accepting the wide impact of the genocide events.

Throughout history, Armenia had its independence of which it can boast today. However, in the fifteenth century, it was absorbed by the Ottoman Empire that was ruled by Muslims. While the government allowed other groups to practice their religion and be autonomous, Armenians were considered infidels and were mostly treated unfairly (Lowery & Freedman 32). Since the population was predominantly Christian, they had to pay higher taxes compared to the rest of the population and had limited legal and political freedoms. Despite these challenges, the community of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire managed to prosper, was better educated compared to their Turkish counterparts who began to resent their success. This resentment can also be traced to the anti-Semitic ideologies of the Middle Ages when Christians perceived the Jewish faith to be inferior and such that should be eliminated. While the origins of Hitler’s antisemitism remain unclear, it is evident that the German nation of the Third Reich had the same feelings toward Jews as Turks felt toward Armenians.

The suspicion that Armenians would show greater compliance with Christian governments intensified once the Ottoman Empire started to crumble. By the end of the 19th century, the government of Turkey increasingly grew obsessed with loyalty, which was also true for the Third Reich, and was infuriated by the campaign of Armenians to attain basic human rights. From the point onward, Turks became dedicated to solving the ‘Armenian issue.’ When Turkey entered WWO in 1914 on Germany’s and Austro-Hungarian Empire’s side, military leaders started perceiving Armenians as traitors since they were dedicated to the Christian faith.

This led to the push to remove Armenians from the war territories on the Eastern Front. The start of the Armenian Genocide is marked by August 24, 1915, when the government of Turkey arrested and murdered several hundreds of Armenian intellectuals. Turks proceeded with creating “Special organizations and other sanctioned groups” that imposed “starvation and extreme violence from all quarters” (Hovannisian 39). Eyewitness testimonies of the genocide support the extreme violence taken against Armenians, with the deportations to the desert being one of the key methods of reducing the population in Turkish lands. The acts of the Ottoman Empire are eerily similar to what Hitler’s government implemented during the Holocaust, which is why drawing parallels between the two historical events can contribute to the discussion of both topics. In the further section, such parallels will be drawn with the help of citing direct quotes from Spiegelman’s Maus.

Drawing Parallels: Holocaust in Maus and Armenian Genocide

Tracing the similarities between the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide is important to the discussion of Maus as a literary piece. The involvement of the Ottoman secret police (Corner 114) is not too dissimilar to the Gestapo operations in Nazi Germany. While there is no specific evidence to suggest that the acts of the two were the same, the devastating influence on both the Jewish and Armenian populations cannot be argued. The Jews were killed using gas chambers, shot one by one into large graves, and were tortured for no good or specific reason (Spiegelman 241). The comparison of the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide results in three major findings. First, the leaders of genocidal movements were Adolf Hitler and Enver Pasha, both of whom did not care about the well-being of minority populations and had the intention of exterminating various groups of people (Kifner). The dehumanization of both Jews and Armenians included but was not limited to taking their names, belongings, homes, and livelihoods. Second, the intentions of both German and Turkish governments were similar: ensuring that an ethnic group is eliminated from a specific territory and subjected to significant suffering. While the motives for the violence were different, the characteristics of genocide applied to both cases.

If to look at the perspective of genocide reflected in Maus, it is imperative to mention some quotes that would illustrate the horrors occurring at the time of Jewish genocide. In the first part of the book in Chapter 6, the author writes, “we knew the stories – that they will gas us and throw us in the ovens. This was 1944… we knew everything. And here we were” (Spiegelman 159). What is interesting is that at the time of the Armenian genocide, the first examples of gas chambers were used against the population. The engineers from the Ottoman Empire developed the first gas chambers by transporting Armenians into rock caves and managing to asphyxiate them by setting bonfires at their entrances (Hovannisian 48). These parallels are extremely significant and point to a similar level of aggression and violence directed toward the representatives of the minority population from the standpoint of a ruling population.

Another notable quote from Maus can be found in the second section of Maus in Chapter one, where it is stated “they registered us in… They took from us our names. And here they put me my number” (Spiegelman 6). This points to the high degree of dehumanization of the Jewish population by the dominant party, which was also evident at the time of the Armenian genocide. While the assignment of numbers to each person was not reported in the research literature, Armenians were dehumanized in other ways. For example, they were not allowed to carry weapons, could not practice the Orthodox religion, testify against Turks in court or even have houses near Muslims. Overall, the combination of these factors established institutionalized mistreatment of Armenians and put them on the lowest level of the social hierarchy. In comparison to this, Jews were seen not only as inferior to other populations but also as not worthy of being alive.

Art Spiegelman also has an extremely powerful quote that can be applied not only to the discussion of the Holocaust but also the Armenian genocide as well as other acts of deliberate violence targeted at exterminating a nation. It can be found in Chapter 2 of the first part of the book: “it was many, many such stories – synagogues burned, Jews beaten with no reason, whole towns pushing out all Jews – each story worse than the other” (Spiegelman 35). Indeed, both the Third Reich and the Ottoman Empire approached the genocide of populations from the same angle. Religion played an important role: by taking away the rights of people to practice their beliefs in their gods, the oppressors diminished them to merely existing and unworthy of serving the role of citizens of their countries. As the government of the Ottoman Empire declared war on those practicing the Christian religion, the government needed to show that they detested Armenians and did not accept their presence within the territory.

The experience of Jews at concentration camps is also similar to what the population of Armenians had done during the genocide. To quote Spiegelman in chapter 2 of the second part of the book, “Auschwitz, it was a camp where they gave you work, so they didn’t finish you so fact. Birkenau was even worse. It was 8000 people in a building made for 50 horses. There it was just a death place with Jews waiting for gas” (31). Similar to Auschwitz, Armenians were also put in concentration camps in the center of the Syrian desert. Thousands of refugees of the Armenian heritage were forced into the death machines and forced to work for free. Anyone from children to the elderly had to survive the atrocious conditions. They ate grass and dead birds just to live through the horrific experience. The similarities between the experiences of both Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and Jews in Europe are evident, which makes it possible to relate the topic of the Armenian genocide to the themes depicted in Maus.

The last notable quote to mention about the associations between the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust can be found in the sixth chapter of the first part of Maus. The quote relates to the feelings of fear that Germans were imposed by their government. The author writes, “the mothers always told so: ‘Be careful! A Kew will catch you to a bag and eat you!’ So they taught to their children” (Spiegelman 151). This shows that from a very young age, Germans were taught that Jews were the ones to be feared and thus were considered enemies of the nation. As one of the stages of the Armenian genocide, there was the symbolization of the latter as infidels and unworthy of living in the Ottoman Empire. Both Germans and Turks taught their children and Jews and Armenians could not be trusted and represented a threat to their communities.

To summarize the exploration of quotes from Maus and their application to the historical events of the Armenian genocide, it is imperative to mention transparent similarities. The Third Reich dehumanized European Jews and discriminated against them, using the most profoundly violent and abhorrent methods of oppression. The Jewish population was murdered at gas chambers, forced to work in concentration camps, was taken away from their religion and cultural heritage, was exiled and overlooked, and quotes from Maus are evidence of that. Armenians had a similar fate during the genocide of their nation and were also oppressed to a great extent. The perception that the mistreatment of Armenians was acceptable was reflected in the ideology of the German Nazi regime that European Jews were not seen as worthy of being treated in the same way in which the Arian nation was treated.

Concluding Remarks

Discussions about the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust have always been complex because of the pain and suffering that people had undergone. The exploration of Maus and the relation of its themes to the Armenian genocide showed the topic of intentional mass eradication of the population has similar undertones regardless of the populations and governments involved in them. Maus is a heartbreaking story that captured the attention of hundreds of thousands of people and taught the lesson of life. While Spiegelman in the second part of the book wrote that “people haven’t changed… maybe they need a newer, bigger Holocaust,” it is essential to understand that no such acts should occur in the future.

History does not have to repeat itself, and global governments can come together to prevent mass genocides, such as the ones explored in this paper, from occurring again. For global communities, it is essential to exercise the political will to speak up against any injustices and intentional acts of violence. It is also important to stop the enablers, which may suggest acts of genocide toward other populations. To achieve this, establishing worldwide policies of genocide prevention, similar to the series of actions of preventing mass atrocities announced by the former United States President Barack Obama. However, fostering a sense of community and mutual respect among nations is fundamental. By using the latest technologies of information sharing, it is essential to exchange perspectives and express opinions as to how the global community can improve in supporting each other. However devastating the history of both Armenian and Jewish genocide maybe, people should learn from their mistakes and be open to accepting each other as communities and equally worthy of living on this planet.

Works Cited

Corner, Isbelle Sarafian. Turks Should Admit Armenian Genocide. Turkey’s Vociferous Denial of the Armenian Genocide Continues Today. The Grand Rapids Press, 2001.

Elmwood, Victoria. “Happy, happy ever after”: The Transformation of Trauma Between the Generations in Art Spiegelman’s Maus: A Survivor’s Tale.” Honolulu, vol. 27, no. 4, 2004, pp. 691-701.

Hovannisian, Richard. The Armenian Genocide; Cultural and Ethical Legacies. Transaction Publishers, 2007.

Kifner, John. “Armenian Genocide of 1915: An Overview.”The New York Times, Web.

Krikorian, Robert. “The Banality of Indifference: Zionism and the Armenian Genocide/The Banality of Denial: Israel and the Armenian Genocide.” The Middle East Journal, vol. 59, no. 3, 2005, pp. 486-489.

Lowery, Zoe, and Jeri Freedman. Genocide in Armenia (Bearing Witness: Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing in the Modern World). The Rosen Publishing Group, 2017.

McGlothlin, Erin. Second-Generation Holocaust Literature: Legacies of Survival and Perpetration. Camden House, 2006.

Spiegelman, Art. Maus. A Survivor’s Tale. Penguin Books, 1991.

As an observer of other cultures, one can easily draw conclusions regarding practices and distinguish what they consider to be ‘natural’ and acquired behavior. But truth can only be known if one is part of that culture or community. A close examination of the book elicits reactions on how women have been abused. The author discusses about stereotypical conducts against women who are not white.

It is painful to see some cases where women are considered as objects that can be raped which is a behavior that cannot be condoned. Issues concerning the way men perceive gender issues and violence towards women who are non whites is scrutinized by the author.

How we analyze issues regarding sexual violence differ. Sexual violence was used as a tool of colonization and discrimination on the basis of race. The biggest victims of sexual violence in this case, are communities who are not white.

The author himself argues that, “colonial relationships were gendered and sexualized.” Though sexual violence affects both native and foreign women, the magnitude with which they are addressed is different. In this case, when Indian men and women are abused, the manner in which the act is perceived is different from when a native woman is abused.

In the event that a native woman is sexually abused, it is considered an attack on her as a woman and as a native woman. This is a clear indication that issues to do with colonization, racism and gender segregation cannot be separated because they all interrelate in some ways.

A ruling by the court in a case among the Aboriginal people of Australia demonstrates the justification of injustices of sexual violence towards women. In this case, a fifty year old Aboriginal man had raped a fifteen year old girl.

The ruling by the judge was lenient on the offender due to his statement that the rape case was not a serious crime but an act of ‘traditional culture.’ Among the basis of his ruling is the fact that the girl knew what to do and that protection was unnecessary because she was aware that the man who raped her had also killed his former wife.

According to the testimony of the anthropologist, “rape was a traditional act and morally correct.” In my opinion, this is misleading and is likely to escalate activities of sexual violence against women.

It is disgusting to observe the expert say that this act is a ‘cultural behavior’ and that it is ‘morally correct.’ The author does a good analysis by relating the origin of sexual violence and genocide to racist discrimination and colonization to women in a broad context.

Colonialist used sexual violence as a means of getting rid of native people while slave masters used it to bore children who were intended for labor use. Immigrant women have not been spared by discrimination.

They have also experienced sexual harassment and widespread bias in employment policies which sideline them. A good example is the Chinese women. As a result, these women are forced to engage in immoral behaviors in order to earn a living, that is prostitution.

Nothing beneficial can come from this perception of women. If the practice continues, while authorities continue accepting it as a ‘cultural behavior’ then people are going to take it as a common practice hence, they will continue practicing it. Women need to be empowered and given equal opportunities in life.

Introduction

Genocide is the premeditated annihilation of a whole group of people based on their ethnic background, religious background, or country of origin. The 1994 Rwanda genocide that took place within the course of a hundred days was ethnic in nature as it involved a premeditated annihilation of the Tutsi minority by the Hutu government. The recent Crisis in Myanmar is about a genocide that has religious undertones. The Myanmar government, which is mostly Buddhist, instigated a military campaign that displaced seven hundred thousand Muslim ethnic minority groups known as the Rohingya (Albert & Maizland, 2020). Governments around the world led by the United States have condemned the Myanmar government of having committed Genocide against Rohingya, but the Myanmar government has refuted the accusations. The horrific 1994 Rwanda genocide that saw 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus hacked to death led world leaders to make a declaration that they would never allow Genocide to be committed again in any part of the world. Despite the declaration, the Myanmar government committed Genocide against Rohingya. This paper will look at various reasons that make it difficult for world governments to stop genocides.

Causes of Genocide

A brief overview of a video of the Genocide that took place in Rwanda courtesy of Runetek2 (2014, 13:01) reveals that the UN, under the direction of its director Kofi Annan was reluctant to seize a cache of ammunition for fear of initiating Somali 2.0. The Belgian command in charge of the UN forces in Rwanda was aware of a plan to commit Genocide. The Belgian-born commander had information from an informant who was a government insider that the government was preparing a plan to kill all Tutsis and moderate Hutus. The Rwandan government had directed its forces and militias to target the Belgian army to discourage them from intervening so the objective of committing Genocide could be achieved.

The reluctance of the US government to intervene was due to fear of repeating what happened in Somalia in 1993 during operation Gothic Serpent. The elite American troops who sought to topple the Somali government led by warlord General Mohamed Farah Aideed met fierce resistance from the warlord’s army leading to the downing of two helicopters and the deaths of the forces. The Failure of this mission weakened the standing of the US government led by Bill Clinton back at home and abroad, and the president did not want a repeat of similar incidents. Political concerns have clearly prevented able governments like the US from taking action that could avert genocides.

The slow response to tell-tale signs that something is brewing is another major cause of genocides. Governments in the developing world where most Genocides take place fail to weed out radical elements that foment negative ethnic sentiments that culminate in Genocide. The UN forces were aware of the leading Hutu extremist, Colonel Theoneste Bagosora, and yet did nothing to stop him (Runetek2 17:37). Apparently, the minority Tutsis could do nothing to stop the Colonel as the government was headed by the majority Hutus. Naturally, the US’s ability to intervene in a foreign country is limited because intervention may be interpreted as interfering with a country’s sovereignty. So, the burden lay squarely on the UN because they had the intelligence. The UN mission in Rwanda was aware that Bagosora had once vowed to launch an “apocalypse” against the Tutsis (Runetek2 17:53). Failure to act against a person in power who made such inflammatory statements can only mean that the racial divide between those who lead the UN mostly white is a major factor that leads to Genocide due to tendency to act with indifference.

A 2001 article by Samantha Power published on Atlantic website highlights the extent to which indifference exacerbates the problem of Genocide. The author is dismayed by the sheer number of missed opportunities that decision-makers fail to take action simply due to flaccid will and self-serving caution (Power, 2001). Samantha suggests that politicians in Washington are hypocritical, suggesting the turn a blind eye because the events simply do not impact people of their race of the events take place in a distant land and to people of a different faith.

Earlier, the video shows proof that Bill Clinton had been briefed about developments in Rwanda, but he was reluctant to act, citing events that took place in Somalia. A few years later, Bill Clinton tends to act in shock when details of the Rwanda genocide are brought to light in a series in The New Yorker. Clinton asks, “How did this happen?” “I want to get to the bottom of this (Power 2001).” The president seems to be angry to act with a sense of urgency after the fact. Declassified secret governments reveal that the US government had sufficient intelligence about what was happening on the ground in Rwanda and missed countless opportunities to intervene.

The US deliberately turns a blind eye to genocides that do not concern white people. Power highlights Bill Clinton’s choreographed visit to Rwanda to apologize for his government’s inaction to avert the Genocide. Power (2001) tells us that the president spoke to a small crowd assembled on the Kigali Airport tarmac. Apart from refusing to send troops to Rwanda, the US government led efforts to remove all UN peacekeepers stationed in Rwanda. Assuming the US had the goodwill as Bill Clinton would want us to believe and that the decision makers were traumatized by what took place in Somalia, then it can be said that the UN troops and US army is insufficiently prepared to deal with militias in foreign lands.

The racial hypothesis prevails over the military unpreparedness hypothesis when further evidence is analyzed. The US aggressively blocked any attempt to send other forces to Rwanda. The US government was aware that radio broadcasts were important in the perpetuation and coordination of Genocide, and yet it failed to use its superior technology to jam the signals.

The US’s blatant failure to use the word Genocide even when 8,000 Tutsis lost their lives every day meant that it avoided responsibility (Power, 2014). The policymakers in Washington deliberately painted the Genocide as wartime casualties. This implied that only combatants were getting killed on the battlefield despite the fact that no two militaries were at war. The diplomats in Rwanda reported the daily occurrence of Genocide back to Washington, but because of political considerations, no action was taken. The US was not complicit with those who planned the Genocide. The indifference with which policymakers acted only reveals that racial motives and political motives were at play.

Despite the international communities to “never again” allow Genocide to happen, the Rohingya in Myanmar have been annihilated while the international community watched (Albert & Maizland, 2020). The US is well aware of the hostile relationship between the Rohingya and the Myanmar government. Discrimination against the Rohingya has been institutionalized in full view of the world governments. The UN, with the backing of the US, had the capacity to intervene in the name of safeguarding human rights. The lightning speed with which the US and western governments reacted and widespread media coverage when Russia invaded Ukraine justifies the hypothesis that US foreign policy is skewed in favor of people who are geographically and racially closer to them.

How Genocide can be prevented

The world moved away from a state-centric universe half a century ago. Human rights have been nominated as a basic human right that all UN state members must respect. Discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and religion has been outlawed. All these positive human developments have done little to deter those who commit Genocide.

Countries have committed to punishing perpetrators of Genocide under UN-backed Genocide Convention. The US has led efforts to stop Genocide and has the higher moral ground of stopping it, given its resourcefulness.

The US has given lip service to deter Genocide. Better policies need to be implemented to help contain Genocide before it begins. The UN must pass a resolution to suspend the sovereignty of a country that commits Genocide to allow powerful countries to take action and bring perpetrators to account. Suspension of sovereignty would deter any government from even thinking about committing Genocide. The US, which has at the forefront of leading the crusade against Genocide, must revise its policies to make it mandatory for the government to act on intelligence presented to it to prevent Genocide from taking place from any part of the world.

Conclusion

The condemnation of Genocide by world leaders has done nothing to prevent the occurrence of Genocide because no proper framework was put in place. The US militarily intervenes in other places to stop terrorists, change regimes, and secure US energy interests and yet does nothing to intervene in nations whose leaders are committing Genocide. It is clear the international institutions created by the US are meant to advance its interests and interests of the conceptual western world. The world needs to set up proper institutions to replace the defunct UN that can act in the interests of the entire world, especially in preventing genocides.

References

Albert, E. and Maizland, L. (2020). The Rohingya Crisis. Web.

Power, S. (2014). Never again: The world’s most unfulfilled promise. Web.

Power, S. (2001). Bystanders to Genocide. Web.

Runetek2 (2014). Ghosts of Rwanda. Youtube.

Definition of Genocide

According to the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, genocide involves many acts perpetuated with the aim of “destroying in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”. These include:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Raphael Lemkin named the crime as genocide to reflect a coordinated assault on civilian populations.

Genocide takes the phrase, “intent to destroy”. Conversely, crimes against humanity refer to “widespread or systematic attacks against civilians”.

Research on Genocide

• De Waal notes that the 1948 UN Genocide Convention differs from how scholars understand genocide today (De Waal, 2007).
• Scholars have noted that the above definition reflects events of Holocaust. Therefore, understanding the case of Darfur as genocide requires a new approach (Fein, 1990; 2007).
• If events in Darfur constitute genocide, then we must change the way we define and understand genocide (Chirot and McCauley, 2006).
• Nazi adopted a final solution referred to as totalizing (complete destruction).
• The Nazi turned to restructuring policies of mass destruction using mass murder that aimed at Europe populations (Komar, 2008).
• Nazi also used forceful resettlement of populations.
• There was also mass murder known as ethnic cleansing.
• Thus, Holocaust was not a mere ethnic cleansing, but genocide (Schabas, 2008).

The aim was to completely destroy the Jews and Gypsies because the German considered them a “disease” that was a threat to Aryan race.

The case of Darfur

According to De Waal, the situation in Darfur raises new questions about events that constitute genocide as these crimes fit “uncomfortably within the definition of genocide” (De Waal, 2007).

It is important to note that there were mass killings, mass rape, and other crimes attributed to racial motives in Darfur (Andreas and Lise-Lotte, 2005).

The Sudanese government (with Arab backing) and its Arab militias (Janjaweed) were responsible for selective murder, rape, and torture of the black Africans in Darfur.

The US position on Darfur

According to the US Secretary of State Colin Powell (2004), events at Darfur constituted genocide. He stated, “genocide has been committed in Darfur and that the government of Sudan and the Janjaweed bear responsibility, and that the genocide may still be occurring” (2004).

This observation was not political in nature.

Colin Powell based the remark on a study the US Department of State commissioned among Darfur refugees in Chad.

The research team concluded that the patterns of violence in Darfur reflected the UN Genocide Convention definition of 1948.

The US Congress voted to classify the Darfur case as genocide in 2004.

The UN view on Darfur

The UN does not classify the Darfur conflict as genocide.

The UN Commission of Inquiry believes that appropriate terms for Darfur conflicts are “ethnic cleansing” and “crimes against humanity” (The UN Commission of Inquiry on Darfur, 2005).

Why is there a disagreement in the case of Darfur?

Links with the Genocide

Some studies indicate why the case of Darfur conflict constitutes genocide (Hagan, Rymond-Richmond, and Parker, 2005).

The government of Sudan and its militias are responsible for conflicts in Darfur. They observed that there has been tension between the Arab herders and African subsistence farmers. However, these people often resolved their differences amicably and even intermarried. When the government intervened, it changed the tension into a dangerous ideology of racial hatred.

Racial injustices are widespread when the government and Janjaweed attack. This is because Khartoum government has a racial inclination. Refugees claimed that racial epithets varied depending on the attacker. For instance, the study attributed racial epithets as follows:

• Janjaweed attacks: 16.5%;
• Government forces: 31.9%;
• Both the government and its militias: 44.3 %.

There were links between racial injustices with rape and killings. The conflict was worse when the government introduced race element. There were killings and rape in most families where racial hostility perpetuated the violence.

The activities of attackers affected all villages in equal measure. In other words, whether there were rebels or not, atrocities were always severe.

The attackers targeted a specific race. In fact, attackers did not spare civilians who never opposed the government.

Attackers spared Arabs.

How Darfur case differs from Holocaust

De Waal identified how Darfur case differed from Holocaust and Rwanda.

• Bashir government escalates racial supremacy in Sudan. It uses non-Arab proxies to promote divide-and-rule among Africans.
• Target communities have lived in peace elsewhere. The government and militias only target villagers, but leave Africans in Khartoum, and even accommodate them in the government and military.
• There were also cases of indirect deaths. The government and militias caused displacement and destruction. The displaced populations eventually died of starvation and diseases.
• The conflict had its peaks. The intensities of the violence depended on whether the military had achieved its objectives or not.
• There were cases where the violence had ended from peace deals.

Counter-insurgency Genocide Claims

De Waal argues that the Darfur case can help us understand the concept of a counter-insurgency genocide. The government claimed to defend itself against armed rebels.

The Darfur case also introduced the issue of famine as a weapon of mass destruction. It entailed destruction of property, livestock, farm produce, and prevention of access to aid (Vehnämäki, 2006).

Mass starvation and diseases created a situation of “genocide by attrition”.

The conflict of South Sudan and Sudan still remains unresolved even after South Sudan gained independence.

In this cases, counter-insurgency crimes like rape, murder, and torture have not ended in Darfur, and now the oil-rich Abyei.

Conclusion

The Darfur conflict has set a precedent for a new approach of understanding genocide since Holocaust.

The UN and the US positions on Darfur differ. We cannot conclude that the UN devalues other heinous crimes in Darfur, but it must find a new definition of what constitute genocide.

Studies have indicated that it is the race issue that predicts occurrences of mass killings and rape in Darfur.

Images For Darfur Genocide – Image Results

Reference List

Andreas, P and Lise-Lotte, T 2005, The Scorched Earth of Darfur: Patterns in Death and Destruction Reported by the People of Darfur, Bloodhound, Copenhagen.

Chirot, D and McCauley, C 2006, Why Not Kill Them All?, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

De Waal, A 2007, ‘Reflections on the Difficulties of Defining Darfur’s Crisis as Genocide’, Harvard Human Rights Journal, vol. 20, pp. 25-33.

Fein, H 1990, ‘Genocide: A Sociological Perspective’, Current Sociology, vol. 38, pp. 1-126.

Fein, H 2007, Human Rights and Wrongs: Slavery, Terror, Genocide, Paradigm Publishers, Boulder, CO.

Hagan, J, Rymond-Richmond, W and Parker, P 2005, ‘The Criminology of Genocide: The Death and Rape of Darfur’, Criminology, vol. 43, pp. 525–561.

Komar, D 2008, ‘Variables Influencing Victim Selection in Genocide’, J Forensic Sci., vol. 53, pp. 172-177.

Schabas, W 2008, ‘Origins of the Genocide Convention: from Nuremberg to Paris’, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, vol. 40, pp. 35-55.

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 2005, Access to Justice for Victims of Sexual Violence, UN, Geneva.

Vehnämäki, M 2006, ‘Darfur Scorched: Looming Genocide in Western Sudan’, Journal of Genocide Research, vol. 8, pp. 51-82.