Genocide: Mass Destruction of a Community
In the past, but also as recent as the twenty first century, there have been mass murders of groups of individuals with similarities that were executed to ‘cleanse’ a region or country. There are multiple causes for these different and tragic cases of mass murders that have occurred throughout history. Every genocide recorded in history has a unique background that led to the affected country to choose mass extermination of their own citizens. Each genocide also has its own different devastating results. Destroying a community to cleanse it can result in various amounts of death in that community. Genocide, which has been committed in many countries including Armenia, Cambodia, and Rwanda, had various death rates and violence acts that sprouted from the sole cause of making the population pure.
Since the first genocide, there have been many interpretations of the definition of the actual word ‘genocide’. The varying definitions have been argued because of minor differences in wording. All of the definitions have one thing in common, and that is that ‘genocide’ is harm to a group of individuals. Polish Jewish lawyer, Raphael Lempkin, first created the effective term of ‘genocide’ to name intentional mass murder (Naimark 5). Although Lempkin had created a term that seemed to successfully describe the horrendous mass murders that have occurred, the definition produced by Lempkin had been challenged by other historical figures. Another definition of the word ‘genocide’ that Norman M. Naimark, a Robert and Florence McDonnell Professor of East European Studies and the Sakurako and William Fisher Director of the Global Studies Division at Stanford University, brings to the reader’s attention is, “By 'genocide' we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group" (Naimark 2). This definition that Naimark talks about in his book is more specific than the previous definition from Lempkin, because it assumes that the mass murder has to be of a specific nation or ethnic group to be considered a genocide. In 1948, another definition came to existence. In the article “Genocide” it is stated:
“Shortly after World War II, the United Nations Convention on Genocide (1948) defined genocide as “any of a number of acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group,” either by killing members of the group or imposing conditions—not necessarily lethal—that would ultimately lead to the group’s extinction” (“Genocide” 1).
This definition, which was enforced after World War II, defines genocide as not only murder of a specific group, but also just imposing harm on a specific ethnic, racial, or religious group. Along with the different definitions of the word genocide, there are also different reasons that the genocides happened.
There can be various reasons why a country or group chooses to have a genocide. Most genocides happen to revolve around the sole purpose of ethnic cleansing or making a community ‘pure’. Genocide is motivated by an extreme hatred of a certain group or ethnicity (Abed 342). A group despising a specific ethnicity or group is the only reason genocide exists. Mohammad Abed, a professor of Philosophy, also explains that "Groups are annihilated on the basis of traits or conduct they are not in fact responsible for” (Abed 342). The perpetrators in charge of the killing of all of the innocent individuals use traits that the group getting executed has to support their cause to murder them all. Like Ben Kiernan, an A. Whitney Griswold Professor of History and the founding director of the Genocide Studies Program at Yale University, states in his research, "Conquest and genocide have often gone hand in hand” (Kiernan 551). Once the perpetrators have set the goal to rid their land of a certain race, ethnicity or religious group, they consider the success from their genocide as conquest as well.
One of the most severe genocides is the Armenian genocide: there were many cultural differences in Armenia that resulted in the tragic murders. The perpetrators in the Armenian genocide were called the regime (Abed 345). The Armenians were the victims of the regime in the genocide. Abed explains that "In the eyes of the regime, the homogenization and social and economic restructuring of Anatolia—which would eventually lead to the liquidation of the Armenians as a community—was the only way of neutralizing the threat” (Abed 345). From the regime’s perspective, the murder of the Armenians was completely justified. Although the regime were the perpetrators, the Germans knew about the mass murder of the Armenian people;"...the Germans were not perpetrators in the case of the Armenian genocide, even if German army and diplomatic representatives knew about the persecution and killing of the Armenians and did little or nothing to stop either" (Naimark 70). The lack of involvement from the German’s made the Armenians feel as though they were also perpetrators; however, intervention from the German’s could have been harmful. External intervention could cause many problems for both sides of the battle (Nzelibe 1212). Even without the interference from outside forces, the results that the Armenians suffered from the genocide were terrible.
The Armenian genocide had devastating effects and deadly results. The death tolls for the Armenians murdered in this genocide were high. Kiernan states that "Some sources estimate the toll of the 1894-96 killings at 80,000-100,000 Armenians dead by December 1895 and possibly as many more by late the next year" (Kiernan 400). The 80,000-100,000 Armenians that were brutally murdered were all murdered at different time periods and different locations throughout the Armenian genocide. The worst episode of the Armenian genocide took place in the province of Adana in 1909, where 20,000 Armenians were killed in riots by hungry and homeless migrant workers (Naimark 71). The Adana episode was the worst of the Armenian genocide not only because of the amount of killings that occurred, but by the way the homeless migrants ruthlessly killed the 20,000 Armenians.
Another genocide that was brutal was the Cambodian genocide. The Cambodian genocide was a led by the Khmer Rouge (Kiernan 539). The ethnic Khmer was 80 percent of Cambodia’s population in 1975: "Of Cambodia's 1975 population of approximately 8 million, an ethnic Khmer majority made up over 80 percent” (Kiernan 539). Since the Khmer made up the majority of Cambodia’s population, it made it more realistic that they could be the perpetrators in the genocide. It is explained in the article “Genocide” that the genocide lasted for four years and was led by the Cambodian prime minister Pol Pot: "Cambodia, 1975–1979. The Khmer Rouge, led by Cambodian prime minister Pol Pot, targeted political and ideological enemies of the state, as well as religious and ethnic groups, who were executed or died in labor camps” (“Genocide” 3). The Khmer targeted ethnic and religious groups that were different from themselves.
The results from the Cambodian genocide were just as devastating as the Armenian genocide; however, the death tolls vary. In the Cambodian genocide, “More than 1.5 million are thought to have perished” (“Genocide” 3). The 1.5 million that perished were killed by the group called the Khmer Rouge. The leader behind the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot, was murdered in 1997 (Kiernan 554). Kiernan explains that "Only Pol Pot's death in 1997, and the surrender of Khieu Samphan and Nuon Chea the next year, ended the Khmer Rouge threat to Cambodia's people" (Kiernan 554). Cambodian civilians were finally free from the evil Khmer Rouge and no longer had to be afraid.
The final genocide to be referred is the harsh Rwandan genocide. The Rwandan genocide was a struggle between the Hutu and the Tutsi (Kiernan 539). The Hutu ethnicity was 85 percent of Rwanda: "In 1994, an ethnic Hutu majority accounted for 85 percent of the 7 million Rwandans” (Kiernan 539). The Hutus out numbered the Tutsis. In the article “The Rwandan Genocide,” the Rwandan genocide is explained: "Known as the Rwandan genocide, this event resulted from decades of internal strife between Rwanda's two main ethnic groups, the Hutus and the Tutsis” (“The Rwandan Genocide” par. 1). The Hutus were ashamed of all of the dead bodies that lined the road in their country, and they did not want the surrounding countries to see the bodies. It was discovered that "In an attempt to hide the scale of the horror from the international community, bodies were covered with banana leaves so they would not be visible to photographers or journalists traveling overhead in airplanes or helicopters” (“The Rwandan Genocide” par. 10). Covering the many bodies with banana leave successfully hid the horrors from photographers and journalists that were flying overhead (“The Rwandan Genocide” par. 10). The Hutus were ashamed of their actions, however, they still continued to kill the Tutsi.
The results for the Rwandan genocide were tragic for the ethnic Tutsi. The ethnic Hutu murdered over five hundred thousand Tutsi in the Rwandan genocide: "Ethnic Hutu militias murdered between five hundred thousand and one million ethnic Tutsis and Hutu pacifists, often by hacking them to death with machetes” (“Genocide” 3). As a result of the five hundred thousand Tutsi that were murdered in the Rwandan genocide, the Hutu gained the Tutsis land (Kiernan 557). Kiernan explains that "The revolution abolished the country's Tutsi monarchy and drove tens of thousands Tutsi out of Rwanda, allowing Hutu farmers to occupy their lands” (Kiernan 557). The Hutu civilians defeated the ethnic Tutsi, and managed to steal all of the Tutsis farmland.
In conclusion, the genocides that were committed in many countries such as Armenia, Cambodia, and Rwanda, had various death rates and various acts of violence that derived from the sole cause of an ethnic group wanting to make the population pure. The motives for the genocides all related to one ethnic group believing that they were superior to the other groups in the country. Although they all had the same main cause, they had different extremes in results and in the acts of violence that had occurred.
Works Cited
Abed, Mohammed. “The Concept of Genocide Reconsidered.” Social Theory & Practice, vol. 41, no. 2, Apr. 2015, pp. 328–356. Academic Search Elite, doi:10.5840/soctheorpract201541218. Accessed 26 Jan. 2017.
“Genocide.” Gale Student Resources in Context, Gale, Detroit, 2016. Student Resources in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ2181500096/SUIC?u=chil38234&xid=929d2a94. Accessed 2017.
Kiernan, Ben. Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur. New Haven, Yale University Press, 2007.
Naimark, Norman M. Genocide: A World History. New York, NY, Oxford University Press, 2017.
Nzelibe, Jide. “Courting Genocide: The Unintended Effects of Humanitarian Intervention.” California Law Review, vol. 97, no. 4, Aug. 2009, pp. 1171–1218. Academic Search Elite, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=afh&AN=44496569&site=ehost-live. Accessed 26 Jan. 2017.
“The Rwandan Genocide.” Gale Student Resources in Context, Gale, Detroit, 2012. Student Resources in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ2181500298/SUIC?u=chil38234&xid=f73d9855. Accessed June 2017.
Since the first genocide, there have been many interpretations of the definition of the actual word ‘genocide’. The varying definitions have been argued because of minor differences in wording. All of the definitions have one thing in common, and that is that ‘genocide’ is harm to a group of individuals. Polish Jewish lawyer, Raphael Lempkin, first created the effective term of ‘genocide’ to name intentional mass murder (Naimark 5). Although Lempkin had created a term that seemed to successfully describe the horrendous mass murders that have occurred, the definition produced by Lempkin had been challenged by other historical figures. Another definition of the word ‘genocide’ that Norman M. Naimark, a Robert and Florence McDonnell Professor of East European Studies and the Sakurako and William Fisher Director of the Global Studies Division at Stanford University, brings to the reader’s attention is, “By 'genocide' we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group" (Naimark 2). This definition that Naimark talks about in his book is more specific than the previous definition from Lempkin, because it assumes that the mass murder has to be of a specific nation or ethnic group to be considered a genocide. In 1948, another definition came to existence. In the article “Genocide” it is stated:
“Shortly after World War II, the United Nations Convention on Genocide (1948) defined genocide as “any of a number of acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group,” either by killing members of the group or imposing conditions—not necessarily lethal—that would ultimately lead to the group’s extinction” (“Genocide” 1).
This definition, which was enforced after World War II, defines genocide as not only murder of a specific group, but also just imposing harm on a specific ethnic, racial, or religious group. Along with the different definitions of the word genocide, there are also different reasons that the genocides happened.
There can be various reasons why a country or group chooses to have a genocide. Most genocides happen to revolve around the sole purpose of ethnic cleansing or making a community ‘pure’. Genocide is motivated by an extreme hatred of a certain group or ethnicity (Abed 342). A group despising a specific ethnicity or group is the only reason genocide exists. Mohammad Abed, a professor of Philosophy, also explains that "Groups are annihilated on the basis of traits or conduct they are not in fact responsible for” (Abed 342). The perpetrators in charge of the killing of all of the innocent individuals use traits that the group getting executed has to support their cause to murder them all. Like Ben Kiernan, an A. Whitney Griswold Professor of History and the founding director of the Genocide Studies Program at Yale University, states in his research, "Conquest and genocide have often gone hand in hand” (Kiernan 551). Once the perpetrators have set the goal to rid their land of a certain race, ethnicity or religious group, they consider the success from their genocide as conquest as well.
One of the most severe genocides is the Armenian genocide: there were many cultural differences in Armenia that resulted in the tragic murders. The perpetrators in the Armenian genocide were called the regime (Abed 345). The Armenians were the victims of the regime in the genocide. Abed explains that "In the eyes of the regime, the homogenization and social and economic restructuring of Anatolia—which would eventually lead to the liquidation of the Armenians as a community—was the only way of neutralizing the threat” (Abed 345). From the regime’s perspective, the murder of the Armenians was completely justified. Although the regime were the perpetrators, the Germans knew about the mass murder of the Armenian people;"...the Germans were not perpetrators in the case of the Armenian genocide, even if German army and diplomatic representatives knew about the persecution and killing of the Armenians and did little or nothing to stop either" (Naimark 70). The lack of involvement from the German’s made the Armenians feel as though they were also perpetrators; however, intervention from the German’s could have been harmful. External intervention could cause many problems for both sides of the battle (Nzelibe 1212). Even without the interference from outside forces, the results that the Armenians suffered from the genocide were terrible.
The Armenian genocide had devastating effects and deadly results. The death tolls for the Armenians murdered in this genocide were high. Kiernan states that "Some sources estimate the toll of the 1894-96 killings at 80,000-100,000 Armenians dead by December 1895 and possibly as many more by late the next year" (Kiernan 400). The 80,000-100,000 Armenians that were brutally murdered were all murdered at different time periods and different locations throughout the Armenian genocide. The worst episode of the Armenian genocide took place in the province of Adana in 1909, where 20,000 Armenians were killed in riots by hungry and homeless migrant workers (Naimark 71). The Adana episode was the worst of the Armenian genocide not only because of the amount of killings that occurred, but by the way the homeless migrants ruthlessly killed the 20,000 Armenians.
Another genocide that was brutal was the Cambodian genocide. The Cambodian genocide was a led by the Khmer Rouge (Kiernan 539). The ethnic Khmer was 80 percent of Cambodia’s population in 1975: "Of Cambodia's 1975 population of approximately 8 million, an ethnic Khmer majority made up over 80 percent” (Kiernan 539). Since the Khmer made up the majority of Cambodia’s population, it made it more realistic that they could be the perpetrators in the genocide. It is explained in the article “Genocide” that the genocide lasted for four years and was led by the Cambodian prime minister Pol Pot: "Cambodia, 1975–1979. The Khmer Rouge, led by Cambodian prime minister Pol Pot, targeted political and ideological enemies of the state, as well as religious and ethnic groups, who were executed or died in labor camps” (“Genocide” 3). The Khmer targeted ethnic and religious groups that were different from themselves.
The results from the Cambodian genocide were just as devastating as the Armenian genocide; however, the death tolls vary. In the Cambodian genocide, “More than 1.5 million are thought to have perished” (“Genocide” 3). The 1.5 million that perished were killed by the group called the Khmer Rouge. The leader behind the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot, was murdered in 1997 (Kiernan 554). Kiernan explains that "Only Pol Pot's death in 1997, and the surrender of Khieu Samphan and Nuon Chea the next year, ended the Khmer Rouge threat to Cambodia's people" (Kiernan 554). Cambodian civilians were finally free from the evil Khmer Rouge and no longer had to be afraid.
The final genocide to be referred is the harsh Rwandan genocide. The Rwandan genocide was a struggle between the Hutu and the Tutsi (Kiernan 539). The Hutu ethnicity was 85 percent of Rwanda: "In 1994, an ethnic Hutu majority accounted for 85 percent of the 7 million Rwandans” (Kiernan 539). The Hutus out numbered the Tutsis. In the article “The Rwandan Genocide,” the Rwandan genocide is explained: "Known as the Rwandan genocide, this event resulted from decades of internal strife between Rwanda's two main ethnic groups, the Hutus and the Tutsis” (“The Rwandan Genocide” par. 1). The Hutus were ashamed of all of the dead bodies that lined the road in their country, and they did not want the surrounding countries to see the bodies. It was discovered that "In an attempt to hide the scale of the horror from the international community, bodies were covered with banana leaves so they would not be visible to photographers or journalists traveling overhead in airplanes or helicopters” (“The Rwandan Genocide” par. 10). Covering the many bodies with banana leave successfully hid the horrors from photographers and journalists that were flying overhead (“The Rwandan Genocide” par. 10). The Hutus were ashamed of their actions, however, they still continued to kill the Tutsi.
The results for the Rwandan genocide were tragic for the ethnic Tutsi. The ethnic Hutu murdered over five hundred thousand Tutsi in the Rwandan genocide: "Ethnic Hutu militias murdered between five hundred thousand and one million ethnic Tutsis and Hutu pacifists, often by hacking them to death with machetes” (“Genocide” 3). As a result of the five hundred thousand Tutsi that were murdered in the Rwandan genocide, the Hutu gained the Tutsis land (Kiernan 557). Kiernan explains that "The revolution abolished the country's Tutsi monarchy and drove tens of thousands Tutsi out of Rwanda, allowing Hutu farmers to occupy their lands” (Kiernan 557). The Hutu civilians defeated the ethnic Tutsi, and managed to steal all of the Tutsis farmland.
In conclusion, the genocides that were committed in many countries such as Armenia, Cambodia, and Rwanda, had various death rates and various acts of violence that derived from the sole cause of an ethnic group wanting to make the population pure. The motives for the genocides all related to one ethnic group believing that they were superior to the other groups in the country. Although they all had the same main cause, they had different extremes in results and in the acts of violence that had occurred.
Works Cited
Abed, Mohammed. “The Concept of Genocide Reconsidered.” Social Theory & Practice, vol. 41, no. 2, Apr. 2015, pp. 328–356. Academic Search Elite, doi:10.5840/soctheorpract201541218. Accessed 26 Jan. 2017.
“Genocide.” Gale Student Resources in Context, Gale, Detroit, 2016. Student Resources in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ2181500096/SUIC?u=chil38234&xid=929d2a94. Accessed 2017.
Kiernan, Ben. Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur. New Haven, Yale University Press, 2007.
Naimark, Norman M. Genocide: A World History. New York, NY, Oxford University Press, 2017.
Nzelibe, Jide. “Courting Genocide: The Unintended Effects of Humanitarian Intervention.” California Law Review, vol. 97, no. 4, Aug. 2009, pp. 1171–1218. Academic Search Elite, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=afh&AN=44496569&site=ehost-live. Accessed 26 Jan. 2017.
“The Rwandan Genocide.” Gale Student Resources in Context, Gale, Detroit, 2012. Student Resources in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ2181500298/SUIC?u=chil38234&xid=f73d9855. Accessed June 2017.